With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". confidential source was not sufficiently corroborated before the warrantless probation search to satisfy a reasonable suspicion standard. Defendant cites to Urioste indicating an informant’s information must be sufficiently verified to show “past, present or pending criminal conduct” likely occurred or is occurring. 2002-NMSC-023, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {51} Our Supreme Court further explained in Urioste that when a confidential source’s tip has a relatively low degree of reliability, but is corroborated by subsequent investigation, even the observation of lawful conduct can establish reasonable suspicion. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. In the present case, the district court ruled reasonable suspicion existed based on t N.M. 742, 975 P.2d 355 (<HOLDING>); State v. Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, ¶ 8, 126 N.M.

A: holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop
B: holding an informants tip can establish reasonable suspicion without investigative confirmation if the tip is credible
C: holding an informants tip if questionable can be corroborated by the observation of lawful conduct
D: holding that an uncorroborated callers tip did not create reasonable suspicion
B.