With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". order the occupants to exit the vehicle, and subsequently pat down the occupants was objectively reasonable given the circumstances surrounding the stop, especially in light of Esquiv-el’s criminal history and the fact that he was suspected of being involved in Garza’s murder. United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200, 206 (5th Cir.1993) (“Clearly, using some force on a suspect, pointing a weapon at a suspect, ordering a suspect to lie on the ground, and handcuffing a suspect — whether singly or in combination— do not automatically convert an investigatory detention into an arrest requiring probable cause.”). Moreover, even if Es-quivel was handcuffed during the stop — a finding the district court declined to make — the stop would still be reasonable. See, e.g., Abdo, 733 F.3d at 565 (<HOLDING>). Based on the facts found by the district

A: holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station
B: holding that like burglary car theft is a crime that often involves the use of weapons and other instruments of assault that could jeopardize police officer safety and thus justifies a protective frisk under terry to ensure officer safety
C: holding that if a police officer inflicted no constitutional injury on a suspect it is inconceivable that the police commissioners could be liable to the suspect
D: holding that a detention remained a valid terry stop despite detaining the suspect at gunpoint handcuffing him and placing him in a police car because police may take reasonable actions under the circumstances to ensure their own safety as well as the safety of the public during an encounter with a suspect
D.