With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1270, 1276 (10th Cir.1999) (suppressing evidence obtained by search of a hard drive for child pornography where the warrant authorized the search for drug-trafficking evidence). The Eighth Circuit has held that, because “[a] search warrant authorizing the search of defined premises also authorizes the search of containers found on that premises which reasonably might conceal items listed in the warrant,” officers who were authorized to open a locked safe to search it for weapons and who moved it to the police station prior to opening it “did not need a second warrant to complete the search of the safe at the police station later.” United States v. Johnson, 709 F.2d 515, 516 (8th Cir.1983); cf. United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 788 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); State v. Soua Thao Yang, 352 N.W.2d 127, 129

A: holding that evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims
B: holding that a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure
C: holding that as to the scope of court review substantial evidence is a stringent limitation
D: holding that the seizure of video tapes for later offsite review did not exceed the scope of a warrant
D.