Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.’ ” Kraus v. County of Pierce, 793 F.2d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1325, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 932, 107 S.Ct. 1571, 94 L.Ed.2d 763 (1987). If the investigatory stops of motorcyclists continued for an extended period of time, probable cause that the motorcyclists knew about the helmet’s non-compliance could be required. “Obviously, if an investigative stop continues indefinitely, at some point it can no longer be justified as an investigative stop. But [Supreme Court] cases impose no rigid time limitation on Terry stops.” Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 685, 105 S.Ct. at 1575. See also Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.1995)  (citation omitted). However, the possibility
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no probable cause when an officer makes a stop based on a mistake of law
B. holding that an unlawful stop may invalidate an ensuing arrest and that without a valid arrest there can be no request to take a breath test which may lead to a lawful suspension
C. holding that a defendants response to even an invalid arrest or terry stop may constitute independent grounds for arrest
D. holding that an initially lawful terry stop can be converted into a fullfledged arrest for which probable cause is required but noting that there is no bright line rule for determining when an investigatory stop crosses the line and becomes an arrest
E. holding that the forceable stop at issue was an investigatory stop rather than an arrest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.