With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". exceptions in the above order. The Government has not argued that the search of Thornton was lawful under the seareh-incident-to-a-lawful-arrest exception to the.warrant requirement. Nevertheless, to ensure the most complete record, this Court will address this exception. In United States v. Montgomery, 377 F.3d 582 (6th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1167, 125 S.Ct. 1347, 161 L.Ed.2d. 143 (2005), the Sixth Circuit reviewed certain principles applicable to this exception to the warrant requirement: Under the “search-incident-to-a-lawful-arrest” exception to the warrant requirement, a law enforcement officer may conduct a full search of an arres-tee’s person incident to a lawful custodial arrest. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234-35, 94 S.Ct. 4 8 L.Ed.2d 464 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 586. Herein, although the Defendant

A: holding that the searehincidenttoalawfularrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest
B: holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government  completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search
C: holding that a lawful custodial arrest is a prerequisite to a search since the arrest is the authority of law justifying the search
D: holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search
A.