With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 565, 567-68, 777 P.2d 1238, 1240-41 (Ct.App.1989). In this case, Doe concedes that the officer was justified in stopping him. The state argues that the officer was also justified in conducting a Terry frisk because the encounter occurred at night, the officers were responding to a possible burglary, Doe and his friend were dressed in black, and police had responded to a break-in or burglary report at the church one week prior to this incident. Several jurisdictions have concluded that certain crimes, like burglary, by their very nature are so suggestive of the presence and use of weapons that a frisk is always reasonable when officers have a reasonable suspicion that an individual might be involved in such a crime. See, e.g., United States v. Bullock, 510 F.3d 342, 347 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barnett, 505 F.3d 637, 640

A: holding that an officer investigating a burglary especially in a residential area at an early morning hour has reasonable cause to believe a frisk is necessary for officer safety because the suspect might be armed with weapons or tools such as knives and screwdrivers which could be used as weapons
B: holding that like burglary car theft is a crime that often involves the use of weapons and other instruments of assault that could jeopardize police officer safety and thus justifies a protective frisk under terry to ensure officer safety
C: holding that when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are in the vehicle the officer may in the absence of factors allaying his safety concerns order the occupants out of the vehicle and pat them down briefly for weapons to ensure the officers safety and the safety of others
D: holding that a police officer may order an individual out of his car and frisk him for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that the individual is armed and dangerous
B.