With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1252, 1256 (10th Cir.1998) (observing that a warrantless arrest is permissible “if facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge and of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that the arrestee has committed or is committing an offense”) (quotation omitted and italics omitted). Owens also stated that the Eidsons’ son had “turned [them] in,” Aplt. App. at 359, when in fact, the mother and grandmother of their son’s girlfriend had contacted law enforcement. Owens’ statement may have led the Eidsons to think that resistance to a search would have been futile, as their unlawful conduct had been exposed by someone with direct knowledge of it. See United States v. Escobar, 389 F.3d 781, 786 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). But it appears that Owens was merely stating

A: holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search
B: holding that a dog sniff of the exterior of luggage in a public airport does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment
C: holding that because the individual was being illegally detained when he consented to the search of his luggage that  consent was tainted by the illegality
D: holding that defendants consent to a search of their luggage was undermined by officers misrepresentation that a drug dog had alerted to their luggage
D.