With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". criminal activity on the suspect’s part.” United States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir.2000). Investigators had observed Wilson meet a heavy-set black male immediately before and after selling crack to the undercover detective on July 17, and after Wilson’s arrest on July 24 he received unsolicited calls demanding to know where he was and why he was delayed. In the officers’ presence Wilson agreed to meet the caller at the restaurant, and it was Black — who fit the description of the man driving the Lumina on July 17 — who showed up at the restaurant. In light of Wilson’s identification of Black as his supplier and the investigators’ own observations corroborating Wilson’s statement, probable cause was established. See United States v. Funches, 327 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hayes, 236 F.3d 891, 894

A: holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law
B: holding that probable cause existed to arrest for trespassing under state law
C: holding testimony of officer and narcotics investigator who both witnessed drug transaction coupled with audio recording of transaction constituted sufficient corroboration
D: holding that probable cause existed when trained narcotics officers observed what they believed to be a drug transaction
D.