With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". presently under investigation. Id. Ovind, 1998 ND 69, ¶¶ 12-13, 575 N.W.2d 901 (footnote omitted). We held “as a matter of law the officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting Ovind as having been involved in the reported fight; therefore, the officer was justified in the limited investigative stop of Ovind.” Id. at ¶ 17. [¶ 12] The district court in this case found Ovind distinguishable because the police in Ovind “had an articulated suspicion that a crime had been committed,” and in this case, “[a]rguing is not a crime.” Although the evidence suggests Officer Rose “really didn’t have full understanding of what was going on” when he radioed Officer Toso to stop Lawrence’s vehicle upon Houle’s direction, we conclude the district court’s finding the offic -90 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Ste-Marie v. State, 32 S.W.3d 446, 448-9

A: holding where first officer was informed by second officer that defendant cursed at her young daughter while driving by in vehicle first officer could have formed reasonable belief that defendant engaged in disorderly conduct to justify stop of defendants vehicle
B: holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown
C: holding traffic stop was legal where eyewitness told officer defendant kicked over parking sign and officer observed defendant yelling and gesturing in parking lot officer had at least reasonable grounds to suspect defendant of having committed disorderly conduct
D: holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation
C.