With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". support a suppression court’s finding that an officer possessed reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(c) has occurred, the officer must articulate at least some fact or facts to support his inference or conclusion that the object materially impaired the driver’s view. Our consideration of other sections of the Motor Vehicle Code informs our conclusion. For example, in order to independently assess whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect a violation of Section 3361 (Driving vehicle at a safe speed), a suppression court would require more than a single statement from an officer that a motorist was driving “at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3361; see Commonwealth v. Perry, 982 A.2d 1009 (Pa.Super.2009) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, we question how a suppression

A: holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation
B: holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer
C: holding that trial court properly determined that police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop appellants vehicle based on suspected violation of section 3361 where officer testified that appellant was driving fifteen miles over the 25 mph speed limit and the road was wet and slushy
D: holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop
C.