Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at night in an area, known for narcotics activity, 2) the manner in which McCray was standing with Bellflower, an individual who the police had previously encountered and who was believed to be involved in drug activity, and 3) McCray’s alleged unprovoked flight when the officers questioned him. Given the totality of the circumstances, the court is not persuaded by the Government’s arguments. The court will address these factors cited by the Government in turn. 1. The Area’s Reputation for Narcotics Activity and the Late Hour First, the court concludes that the area’s reputation for narcotics activity and the late hour of the evening are not objective factors that contribute to reason able suspicion within the context of this stop. See United States v. Carter, 1999 WL 1007044 at *4-5 . Although the reputation of an area for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an areas reputation for criminal activity alone cannot justify an investigatory stop
B. holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop
C. holding circumstances supporting reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of occupants of a van included that the van was located near the vicinity where officers had reports earlier that evening of breakins involving a van
D. holding that neither the areas reputation nor the late hour of the evening could be used to establish reasonable suspicion where a stop occurred near a hospital
E. holding that the areas propensity toward criminal activity is one factor to be considered in determining the existence of reasonable suspicion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.