Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the permissible scope of detention for a routine traffic stop based on an equipment violation. We have held that a police officer may, during a routine traffic stop, “ask about the driver’s authority to operate the vehicle,” check the driver’s license and registration, and ask about travel plans. Holt, 264 F.3d at 1221. The officer may also ask a driver to remove an obstruction from a vehicle’s dashboard if the vehicle’s VIN is not otherwise visible from outside the car. Caro, 248 F.3d at 1245. However, we have generally required that further questioning by an officer of an investigative nature, including a request to search a vehicle, be legitimately related in its investigative purpose to the officer’s reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. See id. at 1246 ; United States v. Doyle, 129 F.3d 1372, 1377
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an officer could not ask for consent to search a cars passenger compartment for an additional vin when the vin on the dashboard was visible from outside the car
B. holding that an evidentiary basis for the search was  lacking  because gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license an offense for which police could not expect to find evidence in the passenger compartment of his car
C. holding that the presence of a gun in a cars passenger compartment supported the possibility that the cars trunk contained ammunition additional weapons andor other contraband
D. holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not
E. holding that an officer clearly had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle without a warrant based on the burning marijuana he smelled as he approached the car
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.