Enrique Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles Darryl Gates, Police Chief John Schiffner John Backus

Opinion by Judge Beezer; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Burns

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (per curiam), the United States Supreme Court held that once a motor vehicle has been *1325 lawfully detained for a traffic violation, police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment. Today, we must decide whether to extend this holding to cover all passengers in a motor vehicle.

Enrique Ruvalcaba appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, and his motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. He argues: (1) that police officers conducted an illegal seizure when they ordered him out of a vehicle in which he was a passenger; and (2) that the district court erred in permitting police officers to testify about their knowledge of Ruvaleaba’s criminal history.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because we are persuaded that the Supreme Court’s holding in Mimms should be extended to passengers, we affirm.

I

Los Angeles Police Officers John Backus…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Although I agree that the district court’s denial of Ruvalcaba’s motion for judgment as *1329 a matter of law and motion for new trial was proper under the circumstances particular to this ease, I do not concur with the majority’s establishment of a bright-line rule that permits an officer to routinely order all occupants to exit a vehicle legally stopped for a traffic violation.

As the majority states, in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the Supreme Court held that an officer may routinely ask the driver to exit a vehicle lawfully stopped for a traffic violation because the officer’s safety is always a matter of concern under those circumstances. The Mimms Court weighed the public’s interest in allowing an officer to take precautionary safety measures when he confronts a driver for a traffic violation against “the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Id. at 109 , 98 S.Ct. at 332 . The Court concluded the officer’s safety takes precedence under these circumstances because the additional intrusion is de minimis when an officer asks the…

64 F.3d 1323 64 USLW 2207 , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6821 , 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11 ,708 Enrique RUVALCABA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Darryl Gates, Police Chief; John Schiffner; John Backus, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-56609. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted * May 1, 1995. Decided Aug. 29, 1995. John C. Burton, Burton & Norris, Pasadena, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Janet G. Bogigian, Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: BEEZER and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, Senior District Judge. ** Opinion by Judge Beezer; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Burns BEEZER, Circuit Judge: 1 In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (per curiam), the United States Supreme Court held that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment. Today, we must decide whether to extend this holding to cover all passengers in a motor vehicle. 2…