With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Doughty determined that Ms. Teunis was not intoxicated or otherwise impaired, the stop should have ended. Defendant’s argument is without merit. This Court has “repeatedly held that the odor of marijuana alone can provide probable cause to believe that marijuana is present in a particular place.” United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 2004). Therefore, “when marijuana is believed to be present in an automobile based on the odor emanating therefrom, we have found probable cause to search the automobile.” Id.; see also, e.g., United States v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 193, 198 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding probable cause justifying a vehicle search when an officer “smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle”); United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 422 (4th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Corporal Doughty smelled the odor of burned

A: holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle
B: holding that defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money
C: holding that an officer clearly had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle without a warrant based on the burning marijuana he smelled as he approached the car
D: holding that officer who smelled burning marijuana while approaching defendants vehicle stopped for tail light violation had probable cause to search for contraband
C.