With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to outstanding warrants discovered during an illegal detention, see Fletcher v. State, 90 S.W.3d 419, 421 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.) (“[O]ur decision should not be read as implying that an officer may detain individuals for no other reason than his hope to later discover that they are subject to arrest via a preexisting, valid warrant.”). See also McBath v. State, 108 P.3d 241, 249 (Alaska Ct.App.2005) (noting even where evidence clearly obtained via valid outstanding warrant, flagrance of police misconduct may still require exclusion "as, for example, where the police conducted an unjustifiable 'dragnet' investigative stop of many people, hoping to find some for whom there were outstanding arrest warrants”); State v. Bigham, 141 Idaho 732, 117 P.3d 146, 149 (Idaho Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). 72 .Terry, 392 U.S. at 15, 88 S.Ct. at

A: holding that evidence obtained from a search made subsequent to an illegal stop was admissible when before the search the police officer discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant and the defendant was thereupon arrested pursuant to that warrant
B: holding encounter became improper detention when officer took passengers license back to police car to run warrant check
C: holding detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion
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
D.