With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Engstrom pushed Hoffman away from the toilet. He reached into the toilet and retrieved a baggie. It was later determined the baggie contained crack cocaine. Corporal Engstrom testified he had participated in the execution of numerous search warrants where drugs were retrieved from toilets. He further testified that after seeing Hoffman standing over the toilet and flushing it, he entered the room because he feared she was destroying evidence. Investigator Geske also testified he thought Hoffman was destroying evidence and stated it was uncommon for a person to see him with a motel manager and then “immediately run into the room and flush the toilet.” The trial court ultimat L.Ed.2d 573 (1988); see also Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 122, 124-5, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The circumstances may also include attempts

A: holding that unprovoked flight is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such
B: holding that a defendants unprovoked flight upon noticing the police in a highcrime area was suggestive of wrongdoing and therefore provided reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory detention
C: holding defendants unprovoked flight from area of heavy narcotic trafficking after noticing uniformed officers provided reasonable suspicion to detain and stating headlong flight wherever it occurs  is the consummate act of evasion it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such
D: holding that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on his presence in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking and his flight upon seeing police officers
C.