With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case cited by the State, United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1160 (11th Cir.2004), in support of this argument is distinguishable on its face because it dealt with approximately eight times the amount of money Enriquez was carrying, weighing more than 40 pounds. 19 . This factor, which is related to probable cause, is not strictly necessary to our analysis. However, we include it in our analysis because a connection between the money and criminal activity is relevant in determining whether the State established the money was contraband. 20 . See $8,300.00 in U.S. Currency v. State, No. 05-11-00901-CV, 2012 WL 5359229, at *1 (Tex.App.—Dallas Nov. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting officers found marijuana in car where money was discovered); $43,774.00, 266 S.W.3d at 187-88 (<HOLDING>); Antrim v. State, 868 S.W.2d 809, 814

A: holding evidence of a secret compartment in car plus canine alert on compartment supported forfeiture but urging supreme court to require more than a canine alert to establish a connection between money and illegal drugs
B: holding that gun found in unreachable secret compartment in vehicle was carried
C: holding evidence was insufficient to establish preponderance of evidence of appellants ability to control drugs where drugs found in compartment on back of passenger seat and appellant was sole backseat passenger
D: holding that a complaint met the pleading requirements when it alleged that 36110 was found packaged an unusual manner the money was hidden in a traptype compartment in a van and there was a positive drug dog alert
A.