With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (footnotes omitted). The “plain view” doctrine is one of the “specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” that may justify a warrant-less seizure. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1153, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) (“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The “plain view” doctrine may also validate a warrantless search of an item, so long as the item could lawfully have been seized. See Hicks, 480 U.S. at 326, 107 S.Ct. at 1153 (“It would be absurd to say that an object could lawfully be seized an d.2d 378 (1994); United States v. Foolodi, 703 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The officers who executed the arrest warrant

A: holding that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense in situations where the arresting officer has not observed the operation of the vehicle such facts and circumstances would necessarily have to include a relationship between the time there was evidence to show the influence of intoxicants and the time of operation of the vehicle internal citations omitted
B: holding that the subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause
C: holding that a probable cause determination should consider the facts and circumstances known to the officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information
D: holding that whether an arrest is supported by probable cause turns upon whether at the moment of the arrest the facts and circumstances within the arresting officials knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense emphasis added
C.