With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pichardo, 356 Or 574. On remand, the Court of Appeals adhered to its initial conclusion that defendant’s consent had not attenuated the illegality. Pichardo, 275 Or App at 58. On review, the state raises two issues. It argues initially that Long’s request for consent did not unlawfully extend the stop because the request was reasonably related to the stop. Alternatively, it argues that, if Long’s request did unlawfully extend the stop, defendant’s consent was sufficient, in the context of this case, to attenuate that illegality. We begin with the first issue that the state raises. The state’s argument on that issue is narrow. The state does not dispute that, as a factual matter, Long’s request for consent extended the stop. Cf. State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372, 182 P3d 209 (2008) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347

A: recognizing that an officer is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation
B: holding that it was impermissible for an officer to question a driver about matters unrelated to the traffic stop after the officer had fulfilled the purpose of the stop by issuing a written warning to the driver
C: holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation
D: holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred
A.