Should the Court reverse Pennsylvania v. Mimms?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should the Court reverse Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109-10 (1977), wherein, based on “the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile” and “de minimis” nature of an intrusion which “hardly rises to the level of a ‘petty indignity,” the Court announced a blanket rule permitting officers to conduct a search by ordering a person from his or her car during a routine traffic stop without a reasonable articulable investigative or policing purpose or suspicion the person is armed or dangerous? 2. May an officer extend a stop by ordering a person from their car on the basis of Mimms after the mission of the stop has, or should reasonably have, been completed, in seeming violation of Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348 (2015)? ii