Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
authori 782 N.E.2d 275, 280-81 (2002) (detention for fifteen minutes to write out ticket while awaiting arrival of drug-sniffing dog called at outset of stop held unreasonable absent reasonable suspicion); Haas v. State, 172 S.W.3d 42, 50 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing United States v. Kelley, 981 F.2d 1464, 1470 (5th Cir.1993)) (noting, under appropriate circumstances, extensive questioning about matters wholly unrelated to routine traffic stop may violate Fourth Amendment). 29 . Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407, 125 S.Ct. at 837. 30 . Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 64; Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 245 (purpose of stop for suspicion o 392 U.S. at 32-33, 88 S.Ct. at 1885-86 (Harlan, J., concurring)); see also United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201, 122 S.Ct. 2105, 2110, 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002) . 46 . Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436, 111 S.Ct. at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that one does not arouse reasonable suspicion merely by attempting to walk away from the police
B. holding only reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a field sobriety test
C. holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement
D. holding that the excluded evidence required a finding of reasonable suspicion
E. holding reasonable suspicion not required provided police do not induce cooperation by coercive means
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.