With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and gave conflicting story to that of driver before being asked for identification); Tardiff v. State, 548 S.W.2d 380, 381-82 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (question by one passenger about person wanted by police, weaving back and forth, and smell of marijuana on both passengers); Borner v. State, 521 S.W.2d 852, 854-55 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (passenger observed attempting to stuff something between seats); Wood v. State, 515 S.W.2d 300, 305 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (passenger appeared intoxicated); Leonard v. State, 496 S.W.2d 576, 577 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (officer smelled odor of marijuana coming from vehicle as he bent down to look at passenger); see also Rhodes v. State, 945 S.W.2d 115, 116-17 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 894, 118 S.Ct. 236, 139 L.Ed.2d . 360, 789 N.E.2d 260, 270 (2003) (<HOLDING>); State v. Riley, 501 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Iowa

A: holding officers request for passengers identification during stop constituted lawful consensual encounter
B: holding officers request for passengers identification not unreasonable although unrelated to reason for stop where it did not prolong detention and passenger was under no obligation to answer
C: holding that an officers request of a passenger who was present solely by virtue of the coincidence he was a passenger for the passengers identification just because the officer wanted to know who he was dealing with for safety purposes constituted an unlawful detention
D: holding that an officers request for a citizens identification by itself did not amount to a seizure
B.