With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". whether Rohrig stands for the proposition that the community-caretaking exception can justify warrantless entries into private residences. See, e.g., Williams, 354 F3d at 508 (“[Djespite references to the doctrine in Rohrig, we doubt that community caretaking will generally justify warrantless entries into private homes.”). 45 Ray v Warren Twp, 626 F3d 170, 177 (CA 3, 2010). 46 See, e.g., Ortiz v State, 24 So 3d 596, 615 (Fla App, 2009) (Orfinger, J., dissenting) (“Other than situations involving the medical emergency exception, until today, the community caretaker exception has not been applied in Florida as a separate exception to the Fourth Amendment to validate an entry into a residence.”). 47 See, e.g., State v Ford, 2010 VT 39, ¶¶ 11-21; 188 Vt 17, 24-29; 998 A2d 684 (2010) (<HOLDING>). 48 United States v Quezada, 448 F3d 1005 (CA

A: recognizing exception
B: recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
C: holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence state has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative
D: recognizing the existence of both the communitycaretaking and emergencyaid exceptions but holding an officers entry into a private residence unconstitutional because it failed to satisfy the emergencyaid exception
D.