Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
DWI effectuated and detention should have ended when officer determined driver was merely tired). 31 . See Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 64; Valadez, 267 F.3d at 398 (continued questioning on unrelated matter and computer check on warrants and criminal history impermissible where officer’s suspicions on which stop was based had already been dispelled); Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d at 432 (once reason for stop has been satisfied, detained individual must be free to leave). 32 . Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 243 (quoting Robinette, 519 U.S. at 41, 117 S.Ct. at 422 (Ginsberg, J., concurring)). 33 . See id. at 244; Perales v. State, 117 S.W.3d 434, 439 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref'd); see also United States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 241 (5t 286-87 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (passenger reeked of marijuana sm . 45 . Gearing, 685 S.W.2d at 329 (citing
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution
B. holding asking passenger for identification not improper
C. holding an officer may order a passenger to get out of a car during a traffic stop and may frisk a passenger for weapons if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous
D. holding officers request for passengers identification not unreasonable although unrelated to reason for stop where it did not prolong detention and passenger was under no obligation to answer
E. holding that an officers request of a passenger who was present solely by virtue of the coincidence he was a passenger for the passengers identification just because the officer wanted to know who he was dealing with for safety purposes constituted an unlawful detention
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.