With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bernal for having a defective headlight and brake light, he was traveling on Highway 287, a known drug-trafficking corridor. Bernal was also traveling from California, a state that, in the officers’ experience, had a reputation for drug trafficking. Bernal was driving a recently purchased car, and based on the officers’ experience, drug traffickers typically use a rental car or a recently purchased car when transporting narcotics. Bernal’s story about the purpose of the trip (i.e., visiting his sister) was suspicious to the officers given that he did not know her address or even the city where she lived. Bernal was driving across the country, from California to Alabama, on a suspended license, a risk that seemed inappropriate given the stated purpose of the trip (i. (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Bernal also claims that his consent to search

A: holding officers request for passengers identification not unreasonable although unrelated to reason for stop where it did not prolong detention and passenger was under no obligation to answer
B: holding that absence of an authorized driver inconsistent explanation regarding reason for trip and passengers presentation of fake id justified officers continued detention of defendants
C: holding presence of a masking odor in vehicle passengers nervous behavior passengers inability to recall the name of his purport ed daughterinlaw and vast divergence between passengers and drivers statements regarding travel accommodations to california justified further detention of the vehicle for investigation of whether a crime was being committed
D: holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver
B.