With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law enforcement efforts. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc); see also United States v. Brooks, 367 F.3d 1128, 1133 n. 5 (9th Cir.2004) (same). “Exigent circumstances alone, however, are insufficient as the government must also show that a warrant could not have been obtained in time.” United States v. Good, 780 F.2d at 775; see also United States v. Lai, 944 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir.1991) (“Exigency necessarily implies insufficient time to obtain a warrant; therefore the Government must show that a warrant could not have been obtained in time.”); United States v. Howard, 828 F.2d 552, 555 (9th Cir.1987) (same); United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1279 (9th Cir.1986) (same); United States v. Manfredi, 722 F.2d 519, 522 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Our definition of exigent circumstances is

A: holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry
B: holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence state has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative
C: holding that as part of showing that a warrantless entry was imperative the government must demonstrate that a warrant could not have been obtained in time even by telephone under the procedure authorized by fedrcrimp 41c2
D: holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search
C.