With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". while driving on the highway at night, read a properly displayed temporary sticker from a distance. But, “[o]nce [the officer] was able to read the Colorado tag and deem it unremarkable, any suspicion that Defendant had violated § 8-133 dissipated because the tag was ... ‘in a place and position to be clearly visible.’ ” Id. at 1051 (Emphasis added). Again, the original indication of a traffic violation was wholly vitiated so continued investigation unreasonably extended the stop. Notable is the uniform theme of our cases, underscoring the requirement that the reasons for the initial stop must be completely dispelled in order for subsequent questioning to be unlawful. Sometimes further investigation is warranted. See, e.g., United States v. Eckhart, 569 F.3d 1263, 1273 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1314

A: holding that if random suspicionless questioning of bus passengers for inspection of identification and tickets was consensual encounter it was not a violation of passengers fourth amendment rights
B: holding that a seizure was unlawful because certain facts had dispelled the officers reasonable suspicion
C: holding a troopers request for a driver and passengers identification and his questioning of them did not violate the fourth amendment because he observed an actual traffic violation after stopping the defendants vehicle and thus his reasonable suspicion was not dispelled
D: holding that the fourth amendment was not implicated when an officer asked for passengers identification to see if he could drive a vehicle because the driver had a suspended license
C.