With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that once Cuva admitted there was contraband in the car, there was probable cause to search the car. The facts do not support this theory. The officers took Cuva’s keys and searched his car even though he was not in or near the ear at the time of his detention. Officers are allowed to search a vehicle incident to the lawful arrest of a recent occupant. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). Here Cuva was never seen in or near the vehicle. Even if he were lawfully in the officers’ custody when they learned where his car was parked, they had no legal basis to search his car without a warrant or his consent. The search was too remote in both place and time to be justified as a search-incident-to-arrest. State v. Howard, 538 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA) (<HOLDING>), rev. denied, 548 So.2d 663 (Fla.1989).

A: holding that search of car was not incident to arrest where arrestee had exited and locked car before he was approached by officer and then arrested
B: holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door
C: recognizing that permissive search of car compartment incident to arrest is based on the fact that compartment is within reach of the arrestee
D: holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
A.