With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". facts were more than sufficient to establish exigent circumstances warranting entry into the defendant’s house. The officers had been dispatched in reference to a kidnapping, and the 911 call that precipitated the dispatch was corroborated by the officers when they arrived at the defendant’s house. The 911 caller was at the scene, and she told the police that she had observed the defendant drag the victim into the house by the neck and heard the victim calling for help. Officer Jean-Francois was able to confirm that there was a woman in the house when he personally heard her screams. Under these circumstances, the officers’ belief that immediate action was necessary to protect life and to prevent serious bodily injury was reasonable. See Arango v. State, 411 So.2d 172, 174 (Fla. 1982) (<HOLDING>). The subsequent search of the defendant’s

A: recognizing that a justification defense requires a present imminent and impending threat which induced a wellgrounded fear of death or serious bodily injury
B: holding that specific intent is not element of assault resulting in serious bodily injury
C: holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim
D: holding that where safety is threatened and time is of the essence the courts have recognized that the need to protect life and to prevent serious bodily injury provides justification for an otherwise invalid entry
D.