With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of no reason, why the excluded evidence supports a finding Officer Hernandez had a motive or bias to falsely testify that appellant drove erratically. 3 . Appellant argues the officers lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause for stopping him. For simplicity and because the differences between reasonable suspicion and probable cause are not material to our analysis, we will dispose of appellant’s issues by considering the officers’ reasonable suspicion to detain him. 4 . Appellant also apparently argues the State, at least at one point, believed Officer Hernandez’s 2006 termination was relevant, admissible evidence because the State originally disclosed this evidence to appellant in a Brady filing. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>). However, appellant does not cite any

A: holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant
B: holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence
C: holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense
D: holding that a conviction violated due process because the prosecutor knowingly refused to disclose crucial exculpatory evidence to the defendant
B.