With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Stephan and his staff probable cause to believe Kaul was violating the criminal tax provisions. B. Stephan’s jurisdiction to execute the warrants Kaul also argues that Stephan was without jurisdiction to enter the Reservation to execute the search warrants and carry out the seizures. Specifically, Kaul argues that the doctrine of tribal sovereignty bars state officials fro .) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). Therefore, because Stephan was acting to enforce state criminal laws on the reservation — here K.SA.. §§ 79-3615, 79-3321 and 79-3322 — the Kansas Act delegated to him the jurisdiction to execute the warrant at Kaul’s store, including the authority to search and seize her records and unstamped cigarettes. See State v. Oyler, 803 P.2d at 582-84 (<HOLDING>); State v. Oyler, 15 Kan.App.2d 84, 803 P.2d

A: holding that based on kansas exercise of criminal jurisdiction over an indian on reservation pursuant to kansas act and ksa  793321 state had jurisdiction in rem to seize contraband cigarettes from his store on reservation
B: holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation
C: holding that because congress enacted the kansas act to confer criminal jurisdiction over all indians in kansas indian selling cigarettes on an indian reservation was subject to ksa  793321 and 793322
D: holding that the kansas act unambiguously confers jurisdiction on kansas to prosecute all offenses  major and minor  committed by or against indians on indian reservations in accordance with state law
C.