With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 8-9, 88 S.Ct. 1868. 9 . See Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 61 & n. 19 (discussing standing of passenger to challenge constitutionality of detention); United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court has not specifically held that a passenger, as distinguished from the driver, is seized at the moment of the stop but has recognized that, as a practical matter, any passengers are stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 412-14, 117 S.Ct. 882, 885-86, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997). 10 . Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3148, 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) .Id. at 52, 99 S Ct. at 2641; see also Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 184, 187-88, 124 S.Ct. at 2457, 2459 (distinguishing Texas statute invalidated in allas 1985, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. McGaughran, 25 Cal.3d 577,

A: holding detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion
B: holding that requests for identification of all occupants explanation of presence in area and warrant check was within reasonable scope of detention
C: holding warrant check not unreasonable where detention not extended solely for that purpose
D: holding taint from illegal detention attenuated by discovery of outstanding warrant where there was no evidence officer stopped appellant solely to request identity in order to run warrant check
C.