Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
language, ... or makes an obscene gesture; d. Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic or the use of a public facility; g. Creates á hazardous, physically offensive, or seriously alarming condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose; or h. Engages in harassing conduct by means of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person. In City of Bismarck v. Nassif, 449 N.W.2d 789, 794-95 (N.D.1989), this Court upheld a disorderly conduct conviction based on the defendant’s use of “fighting words” likely to provoke violent reaction where the jury could have reasonably found bystanders in a public place heard the defendant make threatening statements from his private property tr.2d 837, 839 (1992) ; City of Dodge City v. Hadley, 262 Kan. 234,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding limited investigative detention of defendant was justified where officer investigated a report that a panhandler at a drugstore had been creating a disturbance potentially implicating a violation of the disorderly conduct statute and defendant matched the description of the suspect
B. holding officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity necessary to support traffic stop where officer received dispatch that defendant committed disorderly conduct and record check showed parked truck was registered to defendant
C. holding investigative detention occurred when officer after initial inquiry exited vehicle and approached defendant because officer chose to escalate the encounter to afford greater investigation which of course is consistent with the purpose of an investigative detention
D. holding traffic stop was legal where eyewitness told officer defendant kicked over parking sign and officer observed defendant yelling and gesturing in parking lot officer had at least reasonable grounds to suspect defendant of having committed disorderly conduct
E. holding police officers show of authority by announcing he was a police officer and ordering defendant to stop was an investigative seizure implicating fourth amendment protections
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.