With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Jeep was at that point immobilized, Weaver asserts that a warrant was required because the exigent circumstances of the mobility of the Jeep were no longer present. Although there are no South Carolina cases directly on point, the case law from the United States Supreme Court and other jurisdictions supports the admissibility of this evidence despite the lack of a warrant. These cases stand for the proposition that if there is probable cause to search a vehicle at the time it is seized this rationale does not disappear merely because the vehicle is taken into police custody. Because a subsequent search would be part of an ongoing criminal investigation, a warrant would not be required. See, e.g., United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 487, 105 S.Ct. 881, 83 L.Ed.2d 890 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380, 382, 104

A: holding that 30 pallets were the cogsa packages where the bill of lading stated that there were 30 packages
B: holding enhancement not appropriate because firearms were seized from defendants home thirtyseven days after last known drug sale occurred
C: holding that only one offense should have been charged when four separate packages of the same drug were found
D: holding warrantless search of packages seized three days earlier from trucks which were suspected of being involved in drug smuggling operation was not unreasonable
D.