Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
circumstances are insufficient to meet the standard of reasonable and articulable suspicion that Defendant had knowingly hired or offered to hire his passenger to engage in a sexual act. Were we to hold otherwise, police officers would have carte blanche based on suspicion of solicitation of a prostitute to stop any vehicle late at night whenever he saw a driver and a known prostitute in the vehicle, to require the driver to exit the vehicle, and to question the driver and the passenger regarding their relationship. That conduct, no different than the conduct in the present ease, is tantamount to a seizure of a driver based on the mere presence of a passenger known to have committed a past criminal act. Cf. State v. Affsprung, 2004-NMCA-038, ¶¶4, 20-21, 135 N.M. 306, 87 P.3d 1088 ; State v. Jones, 114 N.M. 147, 151, 835 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that police officer was not justified in detaining a passenger who exited and began to walk away from a lawfully stopped vehicle absent an articulated reason as to why it was necessary to detain the passenger for the officers safety
C. holding asking passenger for identification not improper
D. 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
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.