Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it, inquired about whether he was on probation or had any warrants and if he could run a records check). For a police officer’s verbal inquiries to amount to a seizure, “something more than just asking a question, requesting information, or seeking an individual’s cooperation is required of an officer’s conduct.” State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392, 403, 313 P3d 1084 (2013). That “something more” can be “the content or manner of questioning, or the accompanying physical acts by the officer, if those added factors would reasonably be construed as a ‘threatening or coercive’ show of authority requiring compliance with the officer’s request.” Id. (quoting Ashbaugh, 349 Or at 317); see also, e.g., State v. Zaccone, 245 Or App 560, 563-67, 261 P3d 1287 (2011), rev den, 355 Or 381 (2014) . In light of the circumstances here, Haugen’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation
B. 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
C. holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions
D. holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.