With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Volkswagen’s papers was reasonable. We acknowledge at the outset that, although the district court did not explicitly consider whether the request to see the Volkswagen’s papers was reasonable in context, our conclusion that it was may conflict with the court’s dicta that Rugen had no basis to detain Hornbecker for reasons unrelated to the traffic stop. After all, the request came after Rugen learned that there was no outstanding warrant for Hornbecker and that Horn-becker’s license and registration were valid; it thus prolonged the detention beyond the point at which it might otherwise be expected to have concluded. But we are obliged in these circumstances to reach our own, independent judgment about the reasonableness of the request. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 697-98, 116 S.Ct. 1657 (<HOLDING>). In assessing the reasonableness of Rugen’s

A: holding that determinations of reasonable suspicion for investigative stops and probable cause to perform warrantless searches should be reviewed de novo by appellate courts
B: holding that credibility determinations are for the jury
C: holding that ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion are subject to independent appellate review
D: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
C.