to determine if it had been stolen. Thus, Offenbacher’s questions were directly related in scope to his reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred. See United States v. Burton, 334 F.3d 514, 518 (6th Cir.2003) (“ ‘Questions that hold potential for detecting crime, yet create little or no inconvenience, do not turn reasonable detention into unreasonable detention.’ ” (quoting United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 954 (7th Cir.2002) (en banc))). 3. Terry Frisk and Search of the Car Next, Wright claims that the Terry frisk of him was unconstitutional because the articulable and objective facts existing at the time of the frisk could not support a reasonable belief that Wright was armed and dangerous. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111-12, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Here, the early-morning stop occurred in an
holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous holding that a police officer may order an individual out of his car and frisk him for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that the individual is armed and dangerous holding that an officer must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous holding that the officer had reasonable belief that the occupants of the vehicle were armed where the officer knew that drug dealers are frequently armed and therefore frisk of the vehicle was permissible recognizing that an officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has been is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity to frisk an individual for weapons and must have probable cause to conduct a further seizure