Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
... [and (2) ] immediately recognizes the object[ ] discovered as evidence of wrongdoing.’” ” State v. Otwell, 733 So.2d 950, 953 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (quoting Smith v. State, 472 So.2d 677, 682-83 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), quoting in turn Herrin v. State, 349 So.2d 103 (Ala.Crim.App.1977)). See also Otwell, 733 So.2d at 953 (recognizing that there is no requirement under the plain-view doctrine that the officer come upon the evidence inadvertently). Here, there is no dispute that Cpl. Wells lawfully stopped Moore for running a stop sign. See Perry, 66 So.3d at 294 (explaining the law-enforcement officers may lawfully stop the driver of a vehicle for a traffic violation). Once Moore was lawfully stopped, Cpl. Wells properly ordered him to get out of the vehicle. See Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111 ; Perry, 66 So.3d at 294 (same). After Moore
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle
B. holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment
C. holding that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendments proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures
D. holding that when lawenforcement officers have legally stopped the driver of a vehicle they may consistent with the fourth amendment order a driver out of the ear for any reason or for no reason
E. holding that the fourth amendment does not require lawenforcement officers to have a reason for ordering a driver who has been lawfully stopped to get out of the vehicle
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.