for asking Robi-nette to exit his vehicle was to question him about possible contraband in his vehicle, the Court found the officer’s subjective intentions irrelevant. See id. (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1774, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (finding that a police officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant so long as there is objective justification for the police officer’s actions)). The Court found that the officer was clearly justified in detaining Robinette for speeding, based on his observations, and additionally justified in asking Robinette to step out of the car, “subjective thoughts notwithstanding.” Robinette II, 519 U.S. at 38, 117 S.Ct. at 421 (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 333 n. 6, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)(<HOLDING>)). The majority then turned to the question of
holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment holding once a driver has been lawfully detained the police may order the driver to exit the vehicle even in the absence of unusual or suspicious behavior without violating the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures the court stated we think it too plain for argument that the states proffered justificationthe safety of the officeris both legitimate and weighty and it specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile holding that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendments proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures holding that the fourth amendment does not require lawenforcement officers to have a reason for ordering a driver who has been lawfully stopped to get out of the vehicle holding that officer may order driver out of vehicle once lawfully detained for traffic violation