With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". warrants so long as facts known to Stephan and his staff provided them with probable cause to believe that Kaul had violated these provisions. Regarding the warrant alleging a violation of K.S.A. § 79-3615(g), Van Petten included an affidavit of Mark Ciardullo, the then-custodian of the Kansas Business Tax Bureau, who swore that Kaul did not have a current or valid Kansas retailers’ sales tax registration certificate and was not remitting Kansas sales tax. Regarding the warrant alleging a violation of K.S.A. § 79-3321, the officers observed a bounty of cigarettes without the tax stamps attached in plain view at a store that did not have a valid sales tax registration certifícate and which had not collected and remitted any state sales tax. We believe that these facts provid (1990) (<HOLDING>). Compare Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1352

A: holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation
B: holding that based on kansas exercise of criminal jurisdiction over an indian on reservation pursuant to kansas act and ksa  793321 state had jurisdiction in rem to seize contraband cigarettes from his store on reservation
C: holding that the kansas act unambiguously confers jurisdiction on kansas to prosecute all offenses  major and minor  committed by or against indians on indian reservations in accordance with state law
D: holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation
B.