In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), an officer stopped a car for an expired license plate. Id. at 107. The officer ordered the driver out of the car. Id. After the driver got out of the car, the officer noticed a large bulge under his jacket. Id. Because the officer believed the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked the driver and found a gun. Id. The state conceded "the officer had no reason to suspect foul play from the particular driver at the time of the stop, there having been nothing unusual or suspicious about his behavior." Id. at 109. The police officer ordered the defendant out of the car and then noticed a large bulge under the defendant's jacket. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 107. Because the officer believed the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked the defendant, and found a gun. Id. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court said the bulge "permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer." Id. at 111. The Supreme Court found the bulge in the defendant's jacket allowed the officer to reasonably conclude the defendant was armed "and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer." Id. at 111-12. The high court held that "once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures." The government's "legitimate and weighty" interest in officer safety outweighs the "de minimus" additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle. (Id. at pp. 110-111.) The Court in Mimms further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver "might be armed and presently dangerous." (Id. at p. 112.) In sum, the police stopped the defendant's car because it had an expired license plate and asked him to exit the car. (434 U.S. at p. 107.) When the defendant exited the car, one of the officers noticed a large bulge under his jacket. (Ibid.) Fearing it might be a weapon, the officer conducted a pat search and discovered a revolver in the defendant's waistband. (Ibid.) The court found the pat search was justified because the bulge in the defendant's jacket gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he might be armed and dangerous. (Id. at pp. 111-112.)