With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances, which requires a reviewing court to examine relevant factors as a collective whole rather than independent pieces.”); United States v. Staples, 194 F.Supp.2d 582, 585 (W.D.Tex.2002) (“[T]he recent opinion in Arvizu emphasized that a court may not evaluate the factors in isolation of each other. Rather, the ‘totality of the circumstances’ approach requires the court to consider the officer’s observations and inferences as a comprehensive picture of the situation that, as a whole, may or may not justify reasonable suspicion.”). “No single fact is determinative” of the outcome of a reasonable suspicion analysis. United States v. Guerrero-Barajas, 240 F.3d 428, 433 (5th Cir.2001); Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 266,122 S.Ct. 744 (<HOLDING>); Staples, 194 F.Supp.2d at 585 (“[A] court may

A: holding this framework applies whether the traffic stop is based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion
B: recognizing that a district attorney must have reasonable latitude in fairly presenting a case to the jury and that the trial judge must have reasonable discretion in deciding whether the bounds of propriety have been exceeded
C: holding that it is improper to categorize certain factors  as simply out of bounds in deciding whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop
D: holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop
C.