at Morris. The Plaintiffs rely on several United States Supreme Court cases when asserting that a person is clearly seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if “a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (explaining that the following circumstances might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave: the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled); see also Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 257, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct.
holding that police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop holding police officers making a traffic stop could order passengers out of the stopped car holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred holding that passengers of automobiles that are pulled over by a police officer for a traffic stop are seized under the fourth amendment holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop