With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3 . See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (noting that "a warrantless intrusion may be justified by ... the risk of danger -to the police or to other persons”) (citations omitted); In re Sealed Case, 153 F.3d 759, 765-66 (D.C.Cir. 1998); Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385 (D.C.Cir.1970) (enbanc). 4 . The government, for its part, forswears reliance on Buie as justification for the search that actually resulted in discovery of the gun. Appellee's Br. at 12 n.3. 5 . That fact alone is not enough, of course, to create an exception to the warrant requirement. See Mincey, 437 U.S. at 395, 98 S.Ct. at 2414 (rejecting a “murder scene exception” to the warrant requirement). 6 . Cf. United States v. Brown, 334 F.3d 1161, 1171 (D.C.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Christian, 187 F.3d 663, 669

A: holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not
B: holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that defendant had knowledge of firearm in close proximity to him when he was driving the car for the cars owner who was a passenger
C: holding that the presence of a gun in a cars passenger compartment supported the possibility that the cars trunk contained ammunition additional weapons andor other contraband
D: holding an officer could not ask for consent to search a cars passenger compartment for an additional vin when the vin on the dashboard was visible from outside the car
C.