With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim for violation of any rights secured under the United States Constitution.” Abeyta v. Cha-ma Valley Indep. Sch. DisT., 77 F.3d 1253, 1255 (10th Cir.1996) (quotation omitted). Kaul has the burden of showing with particularity facts and law establishing the inference that Stephan violated a constitutional right. Id. We do not reach the issue of qualified immunity if Kaul’s claim is not actionable. Id. A. Probable cause supporting the warrants The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oat le Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 159, 161-62, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 2084, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, federal law does not excuse Kaul

A: holding that based on kansas exercise of criminal jurisdiction over an indian on reservation pursuant to kansas act and ksa  793321 state had jurisdiction in rem to seize contraband cigarettes from his store on reservation
B: holding that montana could require indians who sold cigarettes to nontribal members to add the states tax to the sale price of the cigarettes and thereby aid the states collection and enforcement of the tax
C: holding that state could require indian tribe to affix tax stamps purchased from the state to individual packages of cigarettes prior to the time of sale to nonmembers of the tribe and that state has power off the reservation to seize unstamped cigarettes as contraband
D: holding that the district court may exercise jurisdiction over an indian tribe when the tribe is engaged in activity off of the reservation as an unincorporated association registered and authorized to do business in this state and is sued in that capacity for breach of a written contract
C.