could reasonably assume that defendant was potentially dangerous. The officers also reasonably believed that the defendant may be armed because of his suspected involvement in drug trafficking. In determining whether the suspect may be armed, an officer is entitled to formulate “common-sense conclusions about the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621, 629 (1981). In a similar case, our Supreme Court upheld a limited search of defendant where officers suspected that defendant was involved in drug trafficking and may be armed. State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227, 415 S.E.2d 719 (1992). See also U.S. v. Rodriquez, 750 F. Supp. 1272, aff’d., subnom., U.S. v. Rodriquez-Morales, 972 F.2d 343 (4th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the search of defendant’s car
holding that it is permissible for an officer to order the occupants out of a vehicle during a lawful stop 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 holding that when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are in the vehicle the officer may in the absence of factors allaying his safety concerns order the occupants out of the vehicle and pat them down briefly for weapons to ensure the officers safety and the safety of others holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger 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