With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This Court has previously held that an affidavit for a search warrant may be based on hearsay information. State v. Wolff, 310 So.2d 729 (Fla.1975) (citing Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980)). See also Blair v. State, 406 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1981). In addition, we note that the United States Supreme Court in Jones found that “an officer may act upon probable cause without a warrant when the only incriminating evidence in his possession is hearsay....” 362 U.S. at 270 [80'S.Ct. 725]. We find no error in the admission of the hearsay evidence in this cause. Lara, 464 So.2d at 1177; see also State v. Cortez, 705 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). The hearsay at issue in the instant case is

A: holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress
B: holding that hearsay is admissible in an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress evidence citing lara
C: holding hearsay admissible in revocation hearings
D: holding that even though a hearing to suppress allegedly illegally seized evidence occurred under a superseded indictment the defendant may not relitigate the motion to suppress after reindictment
B.