With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cannot be characterized [as] anything but a “mere inconvenience,” Terry [v. Ohio], 392 U.S. [1], at 17, 88 S.Ct. 1868[, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ], that we think falls far short of a “serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person,” or even a “petty indignity.” Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111, 98 S.Ct. 330; see also Moorefield, 111 F.3d at 13.... Furthermore, the public concern for officer safety here is as weighty as it was in Wilson. We have no reason to believe, nor has Williams provided any evidence to the contrary, that traffic stops today present safer encounters for police officers than they did less than ten years ago when Wilson was decided. We are convinced that in this case the continuing importance of, and the p .Ed.2d 255 (1997); Walls v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind.App.1999) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Florida, 734 So.2d 1107

A: holding that even a de minimis extension of a traffic stop is unconstitutional absent reasonable suspicion
B: holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous
C: holding that one does not arouse reasonable suspicion merely by attempting to walk away from the police
D: holding that passenger who attempts to walk away from a legal traffic stop cannot be detained absent reasonable suspicion of dangerous or criminal activity
D.