With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because no traffic infraction defendant is entitled to a jury trial lacks merit. See People v. Oppenheimer, 116 Cal.Rptr. 795, 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4, 8-11 (1974) (citing Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), and concluding that a minor traffic infraction is so petty as to not fall within the federal constitutional requirement of a jury trial); see also United States v. Clavette, 135 F.3d 1308, 1309-10 (9th Cir.1998) (presumption that jury trial not required for crimes punishable by six months or less). Even if traffic infractions were “civil in nature,” for Fourth Amendment purposes, it makes no difference that a traffic violation is deemed “civil” as opposed to “criminal.” See United States u. Choudhry, 461 F.3d 1097, 1102-1103 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Finally, even if we assume that Trotter was

A: holding that a mere parking violation justified the investigatory stop of choudrys vehicle
B: holding that the forceable stop at issue was an investigatory stop rather than an arrest
C: holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop
D: recognizing investigatory stop must be justified by objective manifestation that person stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity
A.