Officials said the video was not edited, that the glitches occurred as the file was uploaded. (so they uploaded this NEW VERSION) “To eliminate any concerns as to the efficacy of the video, DPS previously requested the FBI examine the dash-cam and jail video to ensure the integrity of the video,” Vinger said. he video of the traffic stop was not edited, according to Texas Department of Public Safety public information officer Tom Vinger. "There was a technical issue during posting later in the video, and we are working to correct," Vinger said Wednesday." http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/...https://twitter.com/tlangfo...http://www.npr.org/2015/07/...
Stoughton, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, said he had the authority to command her to get out of the car.
Stoughton said police officers can at any trafic stop to get out of the car. http://www.npr.org/2015/07/...
Stoughton said she didn't have the right to refuse lawful commands.
"Yes, an officer can order you out of your car, police experts agreed." http://www.latimes.com/nati...
Bottom line is cops have the legal authority to order you out of your car: "In Arizona v. Johnson, the Court summarized the expanded rule from Terry as it applies to traffic stops:
Three decisions cumulatively portray Terry’s application in a traffic-stop setting: Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (per curiam); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997); and Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007).
In Mimms, the Court held that “once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.” 434 U.S., at 111, n. 6.
Wilson held that the Mimms rule applied to passengers as well as to drivers. Specifically, the Court instructed that “an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.” 519 U.S. at 415.
It is true, the Court acknowledged, that in a lawful traffic stop, “[t]here is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense,” but “there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers.” Id. On the other hand, the Court emphasized, the risk of a violent encounter in a traffic-stop setting “stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop.” Id., at 414. “[T]he motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime,” the Court stated, “is every bit as great as that of the driver.” Ibid. Moreover, the Court noted, “as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle,” id., at 413-414, so “the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal,”id., at 415.
Completing the picture, Brendlin held that a passenger is seized, just as the driver is, “from the moment [a car stopped by the police comes] to a halt on the side of the road.” 551 U.S., at 263. A passenger therefore has standing to challenge a stop’s constitutionality. Id., at 256-259.
After Wilson, but before Brendlin, the Court had stated, in dictum, that officers who conduct “routine traffic stop[s]” may “perform a ‘patdown’ of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous.” Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117-118 (1998). That forecast, we now confirm, accurately captures the combined thrust of the Court’s decisions inMimms, Wilson, and Brendlin.
The answer is clear that an officer can order all occupants of a vehicle out of the car pending the completion of the stop if the initial stop was lawful. The reasoning behind these rules is almost always the same: officer safety." http://www.hullstreetlaw.co...