With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d at 1362. Reasonable suspicion is described as a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. White, 584 F.3d 935, 949 (10th Cir.2009). This standard does not mean that the officer must rule out all possible innocent conduct, see United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002), but “[i]nchoate suspicions and unparticularized hunches are not sufficient,” United States v. DeJear, 552 F.3d at 1200. In determining whether reasonable suspicion existed, the court must look objectively at the totality of the circumstances of which the officer was aware. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. 744; United States v. Ceballos, 355 Fed.Appx. 226, 228-29 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). 3. The Scope of an Officers’ Conduct During a

A: holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law
B: holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer
C: holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion
D: holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment
B.