With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". authorizes the search of “any vehicle,” officers may search the vehicles of guests. In other words, neither the court nor, apparently, the parties, argued the probable cause issue — which is what Swift argues in this case. Unlike the appellant in Gentry, Swift does not dispute the scope of the 44 Reed Road warrant. It is not contested that, on its face, the warrant directed the officers to search every vehicle at the scene. Instead, Swift argues that the 44 Reed Road warrant is invalid because the underlying affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search every vehicle at the scene. 2. Particularity is Not an Issue The Prosecution also argues that “all vehicles” warrants satisfy the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Though some state courts have found otherwise (<HOLDING>), most courts considering this question,

A: holding such agreements to be per se illegal
B: holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable
C: holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment
D: holding that such any and all language is per se unconstitutional for lack of particularity
D.