IN THE CASE IN QUESTION, POLICE MADE A ROUTINE STOP, FOUND A GUN ON THE DRIVER WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO STEP OUT OF HIS CAR, AND ARRESTED HIM FOR CARRYING A GUN WITHOUT A LICENSE. THE DEFENDANT'S MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE GUN AS EVIDENCE WAS DENIED, AND HE WAS CONVICTED. THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BECAUSE IT WAS SEIZED AS THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSED THAT HOLDING, RELYING HEAVILY ON THE ARGUMENT THAT ANY INTRUSION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY EXPERIENCED BY MOTORISTS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO LEAVE THEIR VEHICLES IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE ADDITIONAL SAFETY AFFORDED POLICE OFFICERS BY THIS PROCEDURE. WEAKNESSES IN THIS ARGUMENT ARE POINTED OUT, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT OFFICERS ACTUALLY ARE SAFER WHEN MOTORISTS ARE ORDERED TO REMAIN IN THEIR VEHICLES. ONE DISSENTING JUSTICE'S OBSERVATION THAT, EVEN IF BEING REQUIRED TO LEAVE ONE'S VEHICLE IS MERELY AN INCONVENIENCE OR A MINOR INDIGNITY, IT IS AN INCONVENIENCE OR INDIGNITY LIKELY TO BE IMPOSED IN A DISCRIMINATORY FASHION, IS NOTED. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COURT'S DECISION POSES A THREAT TO ALREADY STRAINED POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS, PARTICULARLY IN THE INNER CITY. MOST LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS PROBABLY WILL NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO LEAVE THEIR VEHICLES. SOME MAY BELIEVE SUCH AN ORDER IS A TACTIC DESIGNED SOLELY TO HARASS. THE EFFECTS OF THE DECISION COULD BE AMELIORATED IN TWO WAYS: THE COURT COULD DELIMIT POLICE DISCRETION IN THIS AREA IN SUBSEQUENT RELATED DECISIONS AND STATE LEGISLATURES AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES COULD CONSIDER CAREFULLY THEIR OPTION NOT TO REQUIRE OFFICERS TO ORDER MOTORISTS FROM THEIR VEHICLES DURING ROUTINE STOPS. (LKM)