hypothetical situations can be conjured up, shading imperceptibly from the circumstances of this case and by gradations producing practical differences despite seemingly logical extensions.... On the facts of this case the conviction ... has been obtained by methods that offend the Due Process Clause.”). Further, the Supreme Court found offensive not just the stomach pumping, but the entire course of the proceedings — the illegal entry into the defendant’s home, the use of force to open his mouth, and the “forcible extraction of his stomach’s contents.” Id., 342 U.S. at 172, 72 S.Ct. 205. In the present case, Lewis concedes that the vehicle stop and the order for him to get out of the car were legal. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41, 48 (1997) (<HOLDING>). There was also testimony that the police and
holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop 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