With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". consistent with innocent explanations, when taken together with the police officers’ training and experience, they are sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion justifying the officers’ approach and investigatory seizure. See State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84, 88-89 (Minn.2000) (“We are deferential to police officer training and experience and recognize that a trained officer can properly act on suspicion that would elude an untrained eye. It is also true that wholly lawful conduct might justify the suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” (citations omitted)). Having developed reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory seizure, the police officers were justified in opening the car door even before viewing the cocaine.. See State v. Ferrise, 269 N.W.2d 888, 890 (Minn.1978) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the district court did not err by

A: holding that officer safety and other concerns authorize police officers to open car doors during an investigatory seizure
B: holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business
C: recognizing that concerns for officer safety warrant criminal history check during traffic stop
D: holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity  as a police officer and not as a citizen
A.