With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)], law-enforcement officers may stop a vehicle for investigatory purposes based on a traffic violation. State v. Rodgers, 903 So.2d 176, 178 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).’ J.T.C. v. State, 990 So.2d 444, 447 (Ala.Crim.App.2008).” 66 So.3d at 294. “So long as the police officer has properly seized the occupants of the car, the officer may order the driver, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977), or a passenger, State v. Hails, 814 So.2d 980 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (recognizing Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997)), cert. denied, 814 So.2d 988 (Ala.2001), out of the car -without violating the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Bailey, 49 So.3d 1245, 1250 (Ala.Crim.App.2010); see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (<HOLDING>). After the driver has been ordered out of the

A: holding that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle
B: holding that when lawenforcement officers have legally stopped the driver of a vehicle they may consistent with the fourth amendment order a driver out of the ear for any reason or for no reason
C: holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment
D: holding that officer may order driver out of vehicle once lawfully detained for traffic violation
B.