With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". traffic stop should have concluded. Accordingly, Clayborn asserts that Detective Hall could not ask for his license and registration because it was not reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the traffic stop. We disagree. On appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews, the factual findings for clear error and the question of whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred de novo. United States v. Allegree, 175 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir.1999). Clayborn does not challenge the factual finding that Detective Hall’s traffic stop was justified and lawful, because it was based on an objectively reasonable, although mistaken, belief that a traffic violation had occurred. See United States v. Peltier, 217 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the issue is whether the

A: holding that a suspects ability to proffer an innocent explanation for the facts does not negate probable cause
B: holding that the dismissal of an indictment did not negate the presumption of probable cause
C: holding that an officers mistaken belief that the defendant was speeding was not an objectively reasonable purpose for a traffic stop
D: holding the fact that officers belief proved to be mistaken does not negate a finding of probable cause
D.