With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 10 . Marine Midland Bank involved the seizure of interbank funds under the federal civil forfeiture laws and upon a warrant issued by a federal magistrate judge, who had determined that the government had probable cause to believe that interbank accounts were being used to launder narcotics proceeds. Marine Midland Bank, 11 F.3d at 1121. The banks moved for return of the seized funds by order to show cause pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e). Holding that "[t]he magistrate judge's probable cause determination should be subject to judicial review," this Court found that the warrant had not been supported by probable cause and therefore ordered the release of certain of the interbank funds. Id. at 1125. 11 . See People v. Earley, 244 A.D.2d 769, 770-71, 666 N.Y.S.2d 223, 224 (3d Dep’t 1997) (<HOLDING>); Grinberg v. Safir, 181 Misc.2d 444, 455, 694

A: holding that arresting officers testimony at suppression hearing supported finding of probable cause to arrest defendant for dwi despite contradictory testimony of defendant and his passenger and despite minor inconsistencies in officers testimony
B: holding contradictory testimony does not invalidate a verdict
C: holding that testimony of sixyearold vietim was not incredibly dubious despite some inconsistencies and that such inconsistencies are appropriate to the cireumstances presented the age of the witness and the passage of time between the incident and the time of her statements and testimony
D: holding that an arrest occurred despite an officers testimony that the accused was only detained prior to a breath test
A.