With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 139. Applying the Restatement approach to this case, the state with the most significant relationship to the communication is the state where the communication occurred unless there is a prior relationship between the parties to the communication. Id. § 139 cmt. e. Here, the communication occurred in Wisconsin, the state with the most significant relationship to the communication, and there was no prior relationship between the hospital and Heaney. Furthermore, there is no strong public policy reason in Minnesota for excluding the evidence. On the contrary, the state’s interest in prosecuting those who violate the state’s criminal vehicular operation laws counsels admission of the evidence. See, e.g., State v. Oevering, 268 N.W.2d 68 (Minn.1978) (<HOLDING>); State v. Lee, 585 N.W.2d 378 (Minn.1998)

A: holding that if an officer smells the odor of marijuana in circumstances where the officer can localize its source to a person the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed or is committing the crime of possession of marijuana and thus has authority to arrest him without a warrant in a public place
B: holding that the natural exigency related to the collection of bloodalcohol evidence justifies a nonconsensual bloodalcohol test when a minnesota peace officer has probable cause to believe that criminal vehicular operation has occurred
C: holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred
D: holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed
B.