With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The question before us is whether the officers’ entry into Yvette Sugura’s apartment, upon which they discovered evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Miles, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment despite the absence of a search warrant. The government argues that the search was justified by the officers’ objectively reasonable belief that Mr. Miles was both living in and present in the apartment at the time of the search. Aplee Br. at 6-12; see also Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[A]n arrest warrant founded on probable case implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.”); Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the government argues

A: holding residence means legal residence for will probate
B: holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop
C: holding that the officers had sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant was inside the residence to execute the arrest warrant because the officers relied on the anonymous tip given to the defendants parole officer the drivers identification of the defendant as meaty in a photograph and his assertion that meaty was in the residence at that time selling drugs
D: holding that payton does not require that the arrestee actually reside in the residence searched provided that the officers had a reasonable basis for believing that the arrestee both 1 lived in the residence and 2 could be found within at the time of entry
D.