is sitting in the car or standing alongside it. The action to step out of the car is merely for the officers’ safety and is not a serious infraction in the liberty of the driver. The case of Terry v. Ohio stated that "the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate." Since the action the officer took to tell the driver to exit the vehicle was justified, then the observation of the bulge in the drivers’ jacket was thought to present danger to the officer and therefore he had "reasonable caution" to have conducted the "pat down." The Supreme Court reversed the Ruling by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Dissenting opinions Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that the "frisk" that the officer proceeded to do to Mimms could only be permissible under the Fourth Amendment if the search was the reason for the stop. The reason Mimms was pulled over was due to an expired licensed plate, which in no way has to do with carrying a concealed weapon. Justices John Paul Stevens and William Brennan wrote a different dissent, stating that the court gave too much leeway in allowing the officers to search the defendant for any reason of concern. See also Exclusionary rule Motor vehicle exception Terry stop References External links 1977 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Fourth Amendment case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Legal history of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Police Department