With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". sale of drugs. Lusby, 507 So.2d at 612. Similarly, in Laws v. State, 540 So.2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 545 So.2d 1367 (Fla.1989), this court found that evidence that defendant produced cocaine from his contacts and stated that he had been in the business for a long time and had other clients, was sufficient to show that he was engaged in ongoing criminal activity. However, unlike the Lusby or Laws defendants, appellant in this case had no prior history of drug use or trafficking, nor did he provide police any reason to infer a familiarity with drugs. Furthermore, he did not take an active part in supplying the drugs. There was therefore no basis for a conclusion that appellant was engaging in the ongoing sale of drugs. Pezzella v. State, 513 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>), rev. denied, 523 So.2d 578 (Fla.1988);

A: holding that there was no interruption of ongoing criminal activity when the police were unaware of any such activity prior to their actions and by supplying the drugs involved in the transaction the police did not facilitate discovery or suppression of ongoing illicit traffic in drugs
B: holding that circumstantial evidence of guilt emanating from the defendants proximity to illicit drugs in plain view was equally susceptible to the reasonable hypotheses that the defendant was a mere visitor and that the drugs were in the possession and control of the owner or other occupant of the premises
C: holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs
D: holding that it was reasonable to conclude that a defendant intended to use a truck to facilitate the transportation of drugs when the defendant arrived at the site of drug activity in the truck and had no alternative means of leaving the site after obtaining the drugs
A.