With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Best v. State, 118 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). 3 . State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). 4 . Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 327; Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). 5 . Ford, 158 S.W.3d at 493; Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 327-28. 6 . Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 327-28; Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 87. 7 . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1873, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1446, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960)). 8 . Id. a 59 Cal.Rptr. 191, 601 P.2d 207, 212 (1979) (noting warrant check permissible if stop not extended solely for that purpose); Jackson, 39 P.3d at 1190 (<HOLDING>). 60 . But see Tucker, 183 S.W.3d at 509

A: holding detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion
B: holding that passenger conduct can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion
C: holding warrant check not unreasonable where detention not extended solely for that purpose
D: holding that requests for identification of all occupants explanation of presence in area and warrant check was within reasonable scope of detention
A.