Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
omitted). “[C]onclusions of law drawn from the fundings of fact are . . . reviewable de novo.” Huyck Corp. v. Town of Wake Forest, 86 N.C. App. 13, 15, 356 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1987) (citations omitted). “A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a vehicle and its occupants if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.” State v. Jackson, 199 N.C. App. 236, 241, 681 S.E.2d 492, 496 (2009) (citation omitted). However, an officer’s determination regarding potential criminal activity must be objectively reasonable, and an officer’s mistaken belief that a defendant has committed a traffic violation is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop. See State v. McLamb, 186 N.C. App. 124, 127-28, 649 S.E.2d 902, 904 (2007) . A passenger in a vehicle which is stopped by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the fact that officers belief proved to be mistaken does not negate a finding of probable cause
B. holding that an officers mistaken belief that the defendant was speeding was not an objectively reasonable purpose for a traffic stop
C. holding that where the defendant obtained a nondefaulted debt under the mistaken belief that the debt was in default and where the defendants subsequent collection activities were based on that mistaken belief the defendant was a debt collector for purposes of the fdcpa
D. holding questions about a drivers purpose for traveling were reasonably related to a traffic stop for speeding
E. holding that a plaintiff must show his belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.