With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to him, Martinez has not adduced competent evidence that Hubbard intentionally discriminated against him because of his race. Though Martinez claims that Hubbard lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the Acura, as I -noted .above* there is no genuine dispute that Hubbard discovered that, the Acura’s license plates were stolen before pulling the vehicle over. Thus, it is undisputed that Hubbard had a non-discriminatory reason to initiate the stop. Courts have held that a plaintiffs equal protection claim may stand even if his arrest was valid and supported by probable cause when the plaintiff sufficiently alleged and provided evidence of intentional discrimination on the basis of race or another protected, class. See, e.g., Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, Harper v. Harris

A: holding that the equal protection clause forbids the prosecution from challenging potential jurors solely on the basis of race or assumptions drawn from their race
B: holding that plaintiff stated viable equal  protection clause claim where officer humiliated and harassed the plaintiff on basis of race prior to and during a lawful arrest
C: holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
D: holding that the equal protection clause forbids prosecutors from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race
B.