100 S. Ct. 1870, 1877 (1980). In deciding whether a seizure has occurred, a court considers whether “if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 509, 100 S. Ct. at 1877; see People v. Murray, 137 Ill. 2d 382, 390 (1990) (approving the use of the Mendenhall standard). As a general rule, all seizures must be reasonable, and the reasonableness of a seizure depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference from law enforcement officers. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607, 614-15, 95 S. Ct. 2574, 2578-79 (1975); see Gonzalez, 184 Ill. 2d 402 (<HOLDING>). Thus, a person may not be seized unless there
holding that it is reasonable for a law enforcement officer to order a passenger to stay at the scene of a traffic stop because the public interest in officer safety outweighs the minimal intrusion to that passengers liberty interest holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop 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 police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction