With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for consent to look for illegal drugs in the vehicle, and “it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search [defendant’s] car included consent to search containers within that car which might bear drugs.” Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801. Lopez-Mendoza argues that dismantling portions of the Dodge Magnum to inspect concealed areas exceeded the scope of any consent to search the vehicle. “Although an individual consenting to a vehicle search should expect that search to be thorough, he need not anticipate that the search will involve the destruction of his vehicle, its parts or contents.” U.S. v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (8th Cir. 2000). However, there is a distinction between damaging a vehicle and dismantling a vehicle. Ther 01)(<HOLDING>). Deputy Sheriff Brown’s search of the Dodge

A: holding consent to search truck for guns and drugs permitted twohour and fortyfive minute search during which the officers removed and inspected pieces of the truck used a fiber optic scope to search the gas tank air conditioning vents fenders and other hidden areas of the truck climbed under the truck with a flashlight pulled apart the door and interi or fabric panels and used a stethoscope
B: holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable
C: holding truck lessors liability to truck lessee existed without parties express indemnity clause in lease thus exclusion was inapplicable where carolina casualty alleged its insured truck lessor was precluded from coverage because lessors liability was assumed under contract with truck lessee
D: holding that officers observations of the speed of the truck coupled with the sound of the engine racing and the bouncing of the truck as it passed through the intersection gave officer probable cause to believe that truck was exceeding a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions
A.