With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". marijuana in clear view on top of the garbage bag and on Mosb/s seat inside the minivan. The smell alone was enough to give rise to probable cause to search the entire vehicle, including closed containers like the garbage bag. See United States v. Cherry, 436 F.3d 769, 772 (7th Cir.2006) (noting that smell of marijuana is “simple and compelling foundation” for searching entire car); United States v. Wimbush, 337 F.3d 947, 950-51 (7th Cir.2003) (noting that search of car was justified after officer saw open container of alcohol and smelled marijuana); United States v. Mazzone, 782 F.2d 757, 761 (7th Cir.1986) (noting that odor of marijuana provides probable cause to search vehicle at least until likely source of odor is found); United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Hines, 449 F.3d

A: holding that the court of appeals properly concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from defendants vehicle constituted probable cause to search the vehicle
B: holding that because marijuana has a distinct smell the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage
C: holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs
D: holding the odor of burnt marihuana standing alone provided  peace offieers with the requisite probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendants vehicle
C.