MICHAEL P. BORSKI, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida appellate court affirmed Michael Borski's convictions for resisting an officer and battery on a law enforcement officer, holding that a police officer lawfully conducting a traffic stop may order a driver to remain in or return to the vehicle during the stop.
A police officer lawfully conducting a traffic stop may order the driver to remain in or return to the vehicle during the stop, consistent with the Fourth Amendment. This power derives from the same constitutional principles that permit officers to order drivers and passengers to exit vehicles during lawful traffic stops.
[1] A police officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may order the driver to exit the vehicle, even without suspicion of foul play.
[2] The rationale permitting officers to order drivers out of their vehicles during a lawful traffic stop also supports ordering drivers to remain in or return to their vehic…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a police officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, order the driver to exit the vehicle even when the officer has no reason to suspect foul play from the driver”
Establishes the foundational rule from Pennsylvania v. Mimms that permits officers to order drivers out of vehicles during lawful traffic stops
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Poston lawfully stopped appellant's vehicle and conducted a field sobriety test. During the stop, the deputy ordered appellant to return to his…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lawful Traffic Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
We affirm appellant’s convictions for resisting an officer and battery on a law enforcement officer, as we hold that Deputy Poston, after lawfully stopping appellant’s vehicle and conducting a field sobriety test, could lawfully order appellant to return to his vehicle for the remainder of the traffic stop.
In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the Supreme Court set forth a “bright line” rule, holding that a police officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, order the driver to exit the vehicle even when the officer has no reason to suspect foul play from the driver. In reaching this holding, the Court balanced the de minimis incremental intrusion on personal liberty in requiring a person already lawfully stopped to spend his detention outside his vehicle against the “legitimate and weighty” interest in protecting the officer against criminal attacks and the hazards of passing traffic. Id. at 110-11, 98 S.Ct. 330. In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997), the. Court extended the holding in Mimms to allow officers to order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle.
We believe that the rationale of Mimms and Wilson applies with equal force to uphold the constitutionality of a police officer’s directive to the driver to remain in, or return to, the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. See United States v. Moorefield, 111 F. 3d 10 (3d Cir.1997); State v. Mendez, 88 Wash. App. 785, 947 P. 2d 256 (1997); State v. Webster, 170 Ariz. 372, 824 P. 2d 768 (Ct.App. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
STONE, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 734 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…that of the driver. Id., 117 S.Ct. at 886. This court recently applied Mimms and Wilson in upholding the validity of a police officer’s directive to a driver to return to his vehicle for the remainder of a lawful traffic stop. See Borski v. State, 712 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In Borski, we determined that the “personal liberty versus officer safety” balancing analysis in Mimms and Wilson applied with equal force to such a command to a driver. We now have before us the separate question whether a pas…
-
Lopez v. State, 225 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop and prolonging the duration of a traffic stop for this purpose without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment). . The court in Wilson acknowledged that it had earlier held, in Borski v. State, 712 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), that a police officer could require a driver to return to his vehicle for the remainder of a lawful traffic stop. Distinguishing that case, the Wilson court noted: We have no difficulty determining, as we did in Doctor [v. Stat…
Authorities Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1997)