With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the driver to produce his license and registration and questioned him about the vehicle and his travel plans. We decided the officer’s detention of the vehicle exceeded the scope of the underlying justification for the stop, saying: “[The officer’s] reasonable suspicion regarding the validity of [the driver’s] temporary registration sticker was completely dispelled prior to the time he questioned [the driver] and requested documentation.” Id. at 561 (italic emphasis in original, underline emphasis added.) Stated differently, since there was no reason to further investigate, the stop was unreasonably extended. Continuing the theme is United States v. Edgerton, 438 F.3d 1043, 1044 (10th Cir.2006). There an initial traffic stop was justified because the officer could no 10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. DeGasso, 369 F.3d 1139, 1149

A: holding that the stop of defendants vehicle was unlawful where officers stopped the vehicle to check the license and registration but had observed no suspicious activity
B: holding it was reasonable for a trooper to issue a written warning verify the defendant license and registration information and ask preliminary questions about travel plans because the trooper saw the defendants registration tag displayed in an unlawful manner even after he approached the vehicle
C: holding that officers may question motorists about their license registration and travel plans
D: holding that where defendant consented to search of the glove box the trunk and the remainder of his vehicle and stood by without objecting when trooper searched beneath back seat of vehicle it was reasonable to conclude that defendants acquiescence indicated that the search was within the scope of the consent
B.