With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". purpose of talking with Lopez and Cronin — precisely what he was doing when he saw appellant in plain view. The predicate for appellant’s subsequent arrest was the consensual entry coupled with the totality of circumstances leading up to his arrest. Information received from DiLaura and the officers’ observations of appellant’s behavior before and after the entry of the Lopez apartment provided them with a reasonable suspicion that there was a valid warrant existing for appellant’s arrest and that he was in the room hiding and otherwise actively trying to avoid apprehension — reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify appellant’s short detention pending confirmation of the existence of an outstanding warrant. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (<HOLDING>). In Payton v. New York, the United States

A: holding that an investigatory stop must be supported by specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion
B: holding that although roving patrols in which officers stop and question motorists about their resident status may be conducted without probable cause such stops must at least show that the stopping officer is aware of specific articulable facts together with rational inferences from those facts that reasonably warrant suspicion that a vehicle contains illegal aliens who may be illegally in the country
C: holding that to justify detention of a criminal suspect the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion
D: holding that for a terry stop to be considered valid from its inception the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion  quoting terry 392 us at 21 88 sct at 1880
C.