in circumstances such as existed here. See id. at 786 (“There is no requirement that •... officers must select the least intrusive way of fulfilling their community cáretaking responsibilities.”). Because Morris retrieved the phone and witiiessed the text messages suggestive of sex trafficking activity in the course of his community caretaking duties, the evidence was properly admissible. Id. at 785 (“[Ejvidence which comes to light during the due execution of the caretaking function is ordinarily admissible .at trial.”). Although Morris’ original search of the car may have been unlawful, Gemma introduced no evidence or testimony suggesting that Morris’ later retrieval of A.L.’s phone was a pretext for conducting an additional search of the vehicle or of the phone itself. Id. at 787 (<HOLDING>). On this record, Gemma’s constitutional
holding that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not  in the course of an arrest investigatory stop or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the fourth amendment and its reasonableness standard holding that an officers diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop holding that officer safety and other concerns authorize police officers to open car doors during an investigatory seizure holding that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force  deadly or not  in the course of an arrest investigatory stop or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the fourth amendment and its reasonableness standard holdingthat so long as an officers actions are not a mere subterfugefor investigation the coexistenceof investigatory and caretaking motives will not invalidate the search or seizure