How does Maryland v. Wilson (1997) extend the ruling of Pennsylvania v. Mimms?

The case of Maryland v. Wilson (1997) builds upon the precedent set by Pennsylvania v. Mimms, particularly in how police officers can interact with individuals in a stopped vehicle. In Mimms, the Supreme Court ruled that an officer could order a driver out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop, upholding the officer's safety as a compelling interest.

Maryland v. Wilson extends this rationale further by allowing officers to also order passengers to exit the vehicle. This ruling emphasizes that the risks encountered during a traffic stop are not limited to just the driver; passengers can also pose a potential threat to officer safety. Consequently, the Court concluded that allowing officers the authority to control the situation by having all occupants exit the vehicle was necessary for their protection. This broadening of authority is significant because it reinforces the idea that the need for safety and control during a traffic stop is paramount, applying to everyone in the vehicle, not just the driver.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately reflect the ruling's implications. For instance, the ruling does not apply only to drivers since it explicitly includes passengers, nor does it limit police orders during stops or restrict passenger interaction with police. The key takeaway from Maryland v. Wilson is the expanded authority