With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 383 ¶ 2, 814 A.2d 1196, 1210; Clark v. State, No. 12-07-00396-CR, 2009 WL 223416, at *2 (Tex. Ct.App. Jan. 30, 2009) (not designated for publication); McCain v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 546, 659 S.E.2d 512, 516 (2008). Our research indicates that only three states have explicitly rejected the Mimms rationale on state constitutional grounds and concluded that an officer cannot order a driver to exit the vehicle after a traffic stop without articulating some degree of objective suspicion. See State v. Kim, 68 Haw. 286, 711 P.2d 1291, 1294 (1985); Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658, 711 N.E.2d 108, 112 (1999); State v. Sprague, 175 Vt. 123, 824 A.2d 539, 546 (2003). 7 . Inquiries into matters unrelated to a traffic stop, however 2007 WL 3072910, at *6 (Tenn.Crim. App. Oct. 23, 2007) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., United States v. Chaney, 584

A: holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant
B: holding that a twoday delay was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference and citing cases where no deliberate indifference was found after a sixteenday delay a sixday delay and a threemonth delay
C: holding that whether clause in construction contract providing that no damages would be available for delay was enforceable was a factual question where there was evidence that damages resulted from unreasonable delay beyond the contemplation of the parties
D: holding that one minute delay between the initial stop of the defendant and the officers question regarding whether the defendant had any illegal substances and his request to search the defendants car was sufficiently contemporaneous with the issuance of the citation such that there was no appreciable delay and certainly no unreasonable delay
D.