Yes. During a lawful traffic stop in Maryland, police may generally order both the driver and passengers to get out of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that officers may order a driver out during a lawful traffic stop, and in Maryland v. Wilson the Court extended that rule to passengers. Police do not need separate individualized suspicion that a particular occupant is dangerous merely to give the order to exit during the stop.
Can Police Order the Driver Out of the Car in Maryland?
Yes. Once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, police may order the driver to get out of the vehicle. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the U.S. Supreme Court held that this additional step is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the government’s interest in officer safety outweighs the relatively small additional intrusion on a driver who has already been lawfully detained.
Police do not need separate individualized suspicion that the driver is armed or dangerous merely to order the driver out during a lawful traffic stop. In Mimms, the officer had no particular reason to suspect the driver posed a threat before ordering him out of the vehicle.
An order to exit the vehicle is not the same as permission to frisk or search the driver. In Mimms, the officer developed a separate basis for a weapons frisk only after the driver exited and the officer observed a large bulge under his jacket. A frisk or other search therefore raises a separate Fourth Amendment question.
Can Police Order a Passenger Out of the Car in Maryland?
Yes. During a lawful traffic stop, police may generally order passengers to get out of the vehicle as well as the driver. In Maryland v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the rule from Pennsylvania v. Mimms to passengers, holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers out of the vehicle while the stop is being completed.
The Court based the rule largely on officer safety. Although a passenger may not have committed the traffic violation that caused the vehicle to be stopped, the Court concluded that passengers are already stopped as a practical consequence of the vehicle stop and that requiring them to exit creates only an additional limited intrusion.
Being ordered out of the vehicle does not automatically authorize police to frisk, search, or require identification from the passenger. Those actions involve separate legal questions and may require their own legal justification. The rule in Maryland v. Wilson addresses the officer’s authority to order a passenger out during the traffic stop.
Do Police Need a Reason to Order You Out of the Car?
Police generally do not need a separate, individualized reason to order a driver or passenger out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted officers to order a driver out even though the officer had no particular reason to suspect that driver of being dangerous. Maryland v. Wilson later extended that rule to passengers.
The important limitation is that the vehicle must first be lawfully stopped. The authority recognized in Mimms and Wilson does not independently give police a reason to stop a vehicle in the first place. It addresses what officers may require after a lawful traffic stop has occurred.
An exit order also should not be confused with authority to conduct a frisk, search a person, or search the vehicle. Those are separate Fourth Amendment actions and can require additional legal justification. In Mimms, for example, the justification for the later weapons frisk arose only after the officer observed a bulge under the driver’s jacket.
Can Police Frisk You After Ordering You Out of the Car?
Not automatically. The authority to order a driver or passenger out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not by itself give police authority to frisk that person. To conduct a protective pat-down for weapons, an officer generally must have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this distinction in Arizona v. Johnson.
Maryland courts apply the same distinction. Facts that may contribute to reasonable suspicion can include a person’s actions, movements, behavior, information known to the officer, and other circumstances surrounding the encounter. Those facts are considered together; an officer cannot automatically frisk every occupant merely because a vehicle has been stopped.
This means an officer may lawfully order someone out of a vehicle under Mimms or Wilson while still lacking sufficient justification to conduct a weapons frisk. Ordering someone out of a car and searching that person are separate Fourth Amendment actions.
Can You Refuse to Get Out of the Car During a Maryland Traffic Stop?
Generally, you should not assume that you have a legal right to refuse an officer’s order to exit the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. Under Pennsylvania v. Mimms, police may order the driver out of a lawfully stopped vehicle, and Maryland v. Wilson extends that authority to passengers. The officer does not need separate reasonable suspicion that the particular occupant poses a safety risk merely to issue the exit order.
Whether the original traffic stop itself was lawful is a separate question. The authority recognized in Mimms and Wilson applies after a lawful stop has been made; those decisions do not independently authorize police to stop a vehicle without a lawful basis.
If you believe an officer’s actions are unlawful, physically resisting at the roadside can create additional legal issues. Maryland Criminal Law § 9-408 specifically prohibits intentionally resisting a lawful arrest and intentionally interfering with an officer making or attempting a lawful arrest or detention of another person. Questions about the legality of a stop or police order can instead be challenged afterward through the legal process.
How Long Can Police Keep You Out of the Car?
Police authority during a traffic stop is not unlimited in duration. The stop generally may last long enough for officers to address the traffic violation that justified the stop and attend to related safety concerns. In Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that authority for the traffic seizure ends when the tasks tied to the traffic violation are, or reasonably should have been, completed.
Police may conduct certain unrelated inquiries while the traffic stop is still underway, but they generally may not prolong the stop to investigate an unrelated matter without an independent legal basis, such as reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. In Rodriguez, even a seven- or eight-minute extension for a drug-detection dog after the traffic-related work had been completed was not permissible without reasonable suspicion.
This means the authority to order occupants out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not create an unlimited detention. Whether a particular stop lasted too long depends on what officers were doing, whether they diligently pursued the traffic-related tasks, and whether additional facts justified extending the detention. Maryland courts likewise apply Rodriguez when evaluating prolonged traffic stops.
Maryland Traffic Stop Rules at a Glance
| Situation | General Rule |
| Driver ordered out | Police may generally order the driver out during a lawful traffic stop |
| Passenger ordered out | Police may generally order passengers out during a lawful traffic stop |
| Separate safety suspicion | Not generally required merely to order an occupant out |
| Frisk after exiting | Requires separate justification; generally reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous |
| Search of the vehicle | An exit order does not automatically authorize a vehicle search |
| Length of detention | Police generally may not prolong the stop beyond its traffic-related mission without an independent lawful basis |
Maryland Laws and Legal Sources
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) – Established that during a lawful traffic stop, police may generally order the driver out of the vehicle without separate individualized suspicion that the driver is dangerous. The Supreme Court continues to cite Mimms for this traffic-stop rule.
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) – Extended the Mimms rule to passengers, allowing officers during a lawful traffic stop to order passengers out of the vehicle while the stop is completed. The case arose from a Maryland traffic stop.
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) – Addresses protective frisks during traffic stops and the separate requirement for reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous before conducting a pat-down.
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) – Limits prolonging a traffic stop beyond the time reasonably required to complete its traffic-related mission without an independent legal justification.
- Maryland Criminal Law § 9-408 – Prohibits intentionally resisting a lawful arrest and intentionally interfering with an officer making or attempting a lawful arrest or detention of another person.
Related Maryland Police Rights Guides
- Do You Have to Identify Yourself to Police in Maryland?
- Can You Record Police in Maryland?
- Can Police Search Your Car in Maryland?
- Can You Refuse a Police Search in Maryland?
- Do Passengers Have to Identify Themselves in Maryland?
- How Long Can Police Detain You During a Traffic Stop in Maryland?