Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the fact that the object's incriminating character was not "immediately apparent" to the officer rendered the search outside the scope of Terry and thereby unconstitutional. Id. at 378-80, 113 S.Ct. at 2139. Applying these principles to the present case, we find that the officers properly stopped the car and properly initiated a pat-down search of Jackson. Further, we find that Officer Thompson properly removed the container from Jackson's pocket. We find, however, that Officer Thompson violated Jackson's fourth amendment rights when he seized the contents of the container, the identity of which was not "immediately apparent" to him. First, the officers were clearly justified in stopping the car for the traffic infraction. See Black v. State, 621 N.E.2d 368, 370 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) ; Walker v. State, 527 N.E.2d 706, 708
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding there was no clearly established right to videotape police officers during a traffic stop
B. holding that a vehicles passenger had been seized and was entitled to challenge the traffic stop
C. holding that the sugar tree ruse did not violate the fourth amendment when officers only stopped vehicles for minor traffic violations
D. holding that police officers may stop vehicles when they observe minor traffic violations
E. holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.