With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". interest in, promoting officer safety outweighs the marginal intrusion on personal liberty. Rogala, 161 F.3d at 53; Moorefield, 111 F.3d at 13; see also Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331. Id. at 1033. ¶ 19 Finally, the court in Williams opined: Giving officers the authority to control all movement in a traffic encounter is sensibly consistent with the public interest in protecting their safety. Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation by splitting the officer’s attention between two or more individuals, and s have reached the opposite conclusion under circumstances similar to those present in the case sub judice. See, e.g., Dennis v. Maryland, 345 Md. 649, 693 A.2d 1150 (<HOLDING>), cert denied, 522 U.S. 928, 118 S.Ct. 329, 189

A: holding that a police officers brief detention of a passenger who walked away from a lawfully stopped vehicle is warranted to promote the officers significant interest in gaining control of and monitoring a potentially hazardous roadside stop in order to conduct his lawful investigation particularly when events subsequent to the lawful traffic stop focus suspicion on the passenger
B: holding that search of area under front passenger seat of a validly stopped vehicle was justified for officer safety
C: holding that a passenger ordered by police to get back onto the vehicle that she voluntarily exited was not an unreasonable seizure because a police officer has the power to reasonably control the situation by requiring a passenger to remain in a vehicle during a traffic stop
D: holding that police officer was not justified in detaining a passenger who exited and began to walk away from a lawfully stopped vehicle absent an articulated reason as to why it was necessary to detain the passenger for the officers safety
D.