With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3092 (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.”); Matthews, 591 F.3d at 235 (“Police officers frequently perform inventory searches when they impound vehicles or detain suspects.”). Contrary to Appellants’ contention, Officer Johnson was not required to arrest Barksdale before conducting the search or contact the registered owner of the vehicle prior to impounding the vehicle, which was obstructing traffic in a busy roadway. Nor was Officer Johnson required to ascertain whether one of the passengers had a valid driver’s license, where the registered owner was not present to give consent to such a third party. See United States v. Brown, 787 F.2d 929, 932-33 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). We also reject Appellants’ contention that

A: holding that a vehicle was readily mobile even though it was locked and its owner was in police custody because other individuals might also have access to the car
B: holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force
C: holding that police officer could reasonably have impounded defendants vehicle either because there was no known individual immediately available to take custody of the car or because the car could have constituted a nuisance in the area in which it was parked
D: holding that even if an officers stop of a defendant who was on foot was unlawful the search of a parked car was justified by a different officer observing a gun magazine in plain view in the car
C.