Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that reasonable suspicion exists ... need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277, 122 S.Ct. 744. Thus, reasonable suspicion exists even though the facts at hand could evidence a legitimate transaction. Finally, the length of Mr. Cervine’s detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Based on the troopers’ testimonies and the dispatch log records, the district court concluded that the traffic stop, detention, and canine search of Mr. Cervine’s vehicle lasted approximately fifty minutes. Cervine, 169 F.Supp.2d at 1214-15. We have upheld similar waiting periods as satisfying the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Villa-Chaparro, 115 F.3d 797, 802-03 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 926, 118 S.Ct. 326, 139 L.Ed.2d 252 (1997) . III. Conclusion Considering the totality of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the justification for a protective sweep of even a few minutes would be questionable in light of the officers concession that after arresting the defendant in front of his house the officer could have just put the defendant in the car and driven away
B. holding that an officer stopped the defendant when he ordered the defendant to take his hand out of his pocket
C. holding that the arresting officer acted reasonably in detaining defendant for five minutes from the time he stopped defendant  and for an additional thirtyeight minutes while he waited for the canine unit to arrive
D. holding suspect for 20 minutes constituted an arrest
E. holding that motion for mistrial was untimely where defendant waited two or three minutes after the objectionable testimony occurred to make objection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.