that they want to keep the passengers in the car that for reasons of officer safety or simply get them out of a car for reasons of officer safety they should be allowed to do that because the intrusion is the minim why isn't the converse just the same i mean why should we be trying to announce you know the rule that you're asking us to announce one there's no way we can possibly take into account all of the trace that's one of the things i believe the chief justice rehnquist stressed that presently to be in the car or to be out of the car to be in the car if he chooses to stay there if you out of the car he would still ordinarily have a right to go and that's what i think is lost in the in the argument that an officer should in all circumstances be able to order the past me back into the car really wouldn't we have a situation where there were six people in the car and the officer stops the driver for some vehicle violation and it's really only the driver that the officers initially concerned about and the other five people get out of the car and start wandering around behind the officer and walking off in a direction where he's now being surrounded by five people why shouldn't he have the right under those circumstances to say everybody just stay in the cart on finished dealing with the driver here see the court point and i'm not suggesting that the officer is without any recourse whatsoever and that particular situation i think that's akin to the situations  you guys get out of here i need to take a driver i need to do the investigation and then you do have a minimalist title for it because there is no significant intrusion on an otherwise really really established freedom to move  however a reasonable amount of time it takes to complete your business on the cars off and the authority to control the situation and based on whatever circumstances you are facing and tell you are done and animal or reasonable i don't that we ought to articulate i don't believe it is certainly supreme court left this question open i'm not saying that the court is going to it from that that they would necessarily rule against it but when you it's always a balancing situation and  the freedom of movement is so firmly entrenched and terry in this car and the cases which are supposed to be nearly limited since there is a reduction in the quantum of probably cause necessary when you have investigated detention the idea that somebody has liberty to walk away can be restrained on these facts i think pushes it on the side of the passenger in other words the liberty interest here seriously being infringed in the court goes down this road in the alps that can take the obvious logical can common steps get in the car you could you know on these tracks and that kind of bright line rationale the officer would probably be justified in telling the past year you have the police car until i get done the passenger has done nothing the passenger is is a passenger in a vehicle and certainly he  a difference between ordering him back in the car from which he just came in and presumably he was there voluntarily and ordering him to get into the police car always always done when he stopped them is prevented them from moving on in a in a place where they were where they presumably had already placed themselves that is confined within a car if you need to talk to the driver why didn't you just say everybody hold the position up be done here in a minute we'll be all will be done a lot faster but if i've got to be watching people who were coming around behind my back and take in this particular instance under the appropriate facts it might be absolutely necessary not really appropriate for the court to do that but the case by case analysis which has always been the touchstone of reasonable that's on the fourth amendment there's nothing that i'm aware of the show workable and i think that is the reasonable solution to me and indeed the cases where the reason the police officer to order someone back in the car but in all instances giving them carte blanche to do that i think takes it too far and really undermines the precepts of terry you don't you time that the opposite order came back in the car he told them you can't leave get back in the car and remain there in your man was afraid he was going to be searched so to prevent the fruit of perhaps an illegal search he anticipated by throwing the gun out of the car our position that at the time that he submitted to the officers command which was to get back in the car under wholeheartedly and all the case of the sighting at issue that was a seizure because he was not free to leave at that point the abandonment issue which i don't believe is probably before the court that the co engaging on that issue with this point i think the any tossing of the gun out of the car was in direct response to the fact that mr williams was seized and for no other reason the time limit it seems at least appears on the police report although the fact we're not really developed in the theme here but i'm really having a hard time seeing the difference when he's initially stopped as a passenger in the car that seems to me to be a seizure very as it may be to minimize and in balancing the law enforcement safety interests against the minimalist intrusion on liberty interest i'm really having a hard time seeing the distinction you're trying to draw as to why it's fundamentally more severe to order him to remain passenger the driver is legitimately believe you committed a traffic violation probably in the officers presence of vehicles stop and so it was not a passenger has been stopped by virtue of the fact that the passenger has to stop but that officer is not really directed any case the government would ask that this court adopt a limited bright line rule along the lines of what judge holman was suggesting in other words that the officer can take reasonable steps to control a situation during a lawful traffic stop and that those reasonable steps include ordering the passenger to remain in the car at least until the situation is controlled under control the standard that the defendant is proposing here that reasonable suspicion be required for that sort of limited limited restriction on the passengers liberty is not a workable standard because it does not ensure the officer safety it requires a level of suspicion that may not always be present even though there is a danger to the officer safety and the hypothetical of the six passengers in the car i think illustrates that if those passengers are free to leave there is no way to ensure what those passengers are going to do once they get out of the car even if they expressed an intent to leave the scene they make with the officers life in danger and to to subject the officer to the sort of chaotic conditions is not required by the supreme court place by a reasonable officer i still think it would be unreasonable for the opposite to inhibit their progress for want of a better word and order them back into the car precisely because there's nothing i think of those circumstances that give perception that too much happens to an officer when you've got a number of passengers in a car some of whom may have access to a weapon so they use that is the locus of the danger in this particular case we have passengers exit in the car removing themselves than the fact upon which they drove i'm not sure that i while i don't know that they necessarily thought it less dangerous i think what they were really saying is that we have to leave it to the officer to decide whether in a particular circumstance that's in the interests of safety to announce a rule that's going to be applied on the streets of oakland as well as in the rural prairie's of montana where the backup may be forty five minutes away and you may have a lone montana highway patrolman stopping a car