*1 Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

The officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the driver of the car in which Rodriguez was riding of breaking the law, and they therefore had a “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to lawfully stop the vehicle. See Cal. Vehicle Code §§ 5200, 4456(c), 11715; see also Heien v. N. Carolina , 135 S. Ct. *2 530, 536 (2014). The officers lawfully asked Rodriguez to step out of the car for the duration of the stop. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms , 434 U.S. 106, 110–111 & n.6 (1977). Rodriguez dropped drugs as he exited. When the officers found the drugs, they had probable cause to arrest him, and the subsequent search of the car in which he had been a passenger was lawful. See United States v. Pinela–Hernandez , 262 F.3d 974, 977–79 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the car and the statements he made after his arrest. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.