With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". granted the motion to suppress and signed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only finding made by the trial court was that “[a]ll witnesses were credible and testified truthfully.” The court concluded that “based on the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement lacked sufficient probable cause to enter the motel room” and “an exigency that required an immediate entry into said motel room without a warrant did not exist.” Applicable Law Because the trial court found the only witnesses who testified — Investigator Geske and Corporal Engstrom — to be “credible and truthful,” we review the application of the law to the facts de novo. See Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). Both probable cause and exigent circumstances must have existed for the s p.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986, 109 S.Ct. 543,

A: holding fact that appellant immediately turned and started walking in opposite direction when confronted by police officer was factor to be considered in determining existence of probable cause to believe he was attempting to flee after committing offense
B: holding that the officer had reasonable grounds to conduct an investigatory detention where a juvenile in a high drug area started walking away upon the approach of a law enforcement officer while keeping his head turned away from the officer and while moving his mouth as if he had something in it
C: holding that the hgn test may be considered as a factor in determining probable cause
D: holding that the incriminating nature of an item was immediately apparent where the police officers had probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime
A.