Cited by

See 10 (concluding that officer’s order to appellant to get out of car in which appellant was a passenger was reasonable, as defined in Terry, because appellant’s “status as a passenger was sufficient to justify the incremental intrusion”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 376; rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

“[I]f an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996)) (concluding that a traffic stop was reasonable because police stopped appellant’s vehicle after observing a traffic violation), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

y seizure may include a limited search for weapons for the purpose of ensuring officer safety, see Askerooth, d at 370-71; State v. Alesso , , and an officer ma y ask a person to step out of a vehicle to allow such a search, see State v. Ortega , , 152 (Minn. 2009); State v. Krenik , , 184 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.

For a seizure to be lawful, the basis for a seizure “must satisfy an objective test: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.” d 178, 182 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.

See State v. Krenik , -84 (Minn. App. 2009) (applying Maryland v. Wilson , 519 U.S. 408, 415, 117 S. Ct. 882, 886 (1997)) (explaining that police may ask a driver and passengers to exit a lawfully stopped vehicle without an individualized basis until the stop’s completion), review denied (Minn. Jan.

A law enforcement officer may order a passenger to get out of a lawfully stopped vehicle despite having no individualized basis to do so, without offending either the United States or the Minnesota Constitution s. Maryland v. Wilson , 519 U.S. 408, 414 15, 117 S. Ct. 882, 886 (1997); State v. Ortega , State v. Krenik , review denied (Minn. Jan.

And in State v. Krenik, this court held that “a police officer does not need an individualized justification for directing a passenger in a legally stopped vehicle to get out of the vehicle.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

(quoting Minnesota v. Dickerson, 4 508 U.S. 366, 375-76, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 (1993)), review denied (Minn. Jan.

he reported use of narcotics in the car, she believed “there could be weapons.” Lynch stated that her concern with appellant having needles was that she did not “want them to be used against me in any way” or to “poke my hand on them.” In State v. Krenik, this court ruled that “[t]he scope of a pat search extends to all concealed objects which might be used as instruments of assault.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.

Under that exception, “[i]f a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and [an object’s] identity [is] immediately apparent [and] the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 376-77, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 (1993); (recognizing the plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement), review denied (Minn. Jan.

“If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and [an object’s] identity [is] immediately apparent [and] the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 376-77, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 (1993); (stating this court has recognized the plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement), review denied (Minn. Jan.

ther on the objective basis for the belief that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity.” -75 (Minn. 2004) (citing Whren and stating that “[i]n evaluating the reasonableness of a traffic stop, the subjective intent of the police officer is not a relevant consideration”); -83 (Minn. App. 2009) (citing Whren and holding that a traffic stop is reasonable when the officer stopped the vehicle after observing traffic violation), review denied (Minn. Jan.