Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(quoting Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568), and, thus, must be “no greater in intensity than absolutely necessary under the circumstances,” see Silva, 91 Hawai'i at 81, 979 P.2d at 1107 (quoting State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 369, 520 P.2d 51, 58-59 (1974)). Moreover, while no single factor, in itself, is dispositive as to when a temporary investigative detention has morphed into an arrest, the potential attributes of “arrest” clearly include such circumstances as handcuffing, leading the detainee to a different location, subjecting him or her to booking procedures, ordering his or her compliance with an officer’s directives, using force, or displaying a show of authority beyond that inherent in the mere presence of a police officer, as well as any other event or con (1982) ; Patterson, 59 Haw. at 363, 581 P.2d at 756
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a reasonable juror could infer defendant knew of the officers investigation for a crime that occurred a few months before his arrest because the investigating officer went to the residence of the defendants exwife made ten separate visits to the defendants business during which he informed those present that he wanted to talk to the defendant about something that happened on the date of the crime and gave this information to the defendants alibi witness
B. holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody
C. holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown
D. holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority
E. holding that no valid arrest had taken place before the search of the defendants person was conducted even though prior to that point a police officer had approached the defendant displayed his badge informed the defendant of his suspicions that the defendants luggage contained drug contraband informed the defendant of his constitutional rights and detained the defendant for twenty minutes after he had accompanied the officers to a police office located in the airport
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.