I disagree with your analysis. And, your facts. Lets start with the facts. Here is what the court said as to the timing of the seizure, the order to step out, and the gun being noticed:
The facts are not in dispute. While on routine patrol, two Philadelphia police officers observed respondent Harry Mimms driving an automobile with an expired license plate. The officers stopped the vehicle for the purpose of issuing a traffic summons. One of the officers approached and asked respondent to step out of the car and produce his owner's card and operator's license. Respondent alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a large bulge under respondent's sports jacket.
Plainly the seizure occurred before the gun was noticed.
Now, as to your "question still stands." Your arrogance does not impress me. We are not your research assistants. You got a question, go look up the answer yourself. But, just for other readers, here is some of that answer. It is contained right in that section of summary you lopped off your quote:
The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.
For Sasha: read the rest of the opinion. It talks at length about officer safety. And the lower court's court opinion that SCOTUS was about to overturn:
But the court nonetheless thought the search constitutionally infirm because the officer's order to respondent to get out of the car was an impermissible "seizure." This was so because the officer could not point to "objective observable facts to support a suspicion that criminal activity was afoot or that the occupants of the vehicle posed a threat to police safety." Since this unconstitutional intrusion led directly to observance of the bulge and to the subsequent "pat down," the revolver was the fruit of an unconstitutional search, and, in the view of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, should have been suppressed. We do not agree with this conclusion. (emphasis added by Citizen).
And, just in case you don't read the opinion, here is the nail in your argument's coffin:
We are aware that not all these assaults occur when issuing traffic summons, but we have before expressly declined to accept the argument that traffic violations necessarily involve less danger to officers than other types of confrontations. United States v. Robinson
So, my answer, and the previous posters' answer about PA v Mimms still stands.
You're welcome.
