With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it would not have been unreasonable for an officer to conclude that the warrant authorized them to search for and seize stolen vehicles. The officers could reasonably have concluded that the warrant was sufficiently particular, even though it described the items to be seized in broad or generic terms, given the nature of the crimes under investigation. See Cooper, 654 F.3d at 1127 (stating “whether a search warrant is sufficiently particular depends in part on the nature of the eximes being investigated,” and holding that “[warrants relating to more complex and far-reaching criminal schemes may be deemed legally sufficient even though they are less particular than warrants pertaining to more straightforward criminal matters”); United States v. Shoffner, 826 F.2d 619, 631 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); of. Messerschmidt, 132 S.Ct. at 1246 (holding

A: holding that failure to identify specific dates and contents of mailings was not fatal to complaint where complaint offered detailed description of defendants overall rico scheme
B: holding that a specific description of vehicles to be seized was not required in a continuing criminal scheme involving stolen automobiles
C: holding that there was no indication of a continuing scheme because the undisputed facts showed that the alleged scheme was of a relatively short duration  between three and eleven months
D: holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce under either 18 usc  2314 which prohibits interstate transportation of stolen goods or 18 usc  2312 which specifically prohibits interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and airplanes
B.