With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fired. See, e.g., People v Wharton, 53 Cal 3d 522; 280 Cal Rptr 631; 809 P2d 290 (1991) (upholding entry of a residence to locate a missing individual); Carroll v State, 335 Md 723, 731-732; 646 A2d 376 (1994) (citing federal and state cases upholding warrantless entries when the police reasonably believed that a burglary was in progress or had recently been committed); Davis, 442 Mich at 28 (assuming without deciding that, in most cases, the sound of gunfire could justify warrantless entry into a motel room under the emergency-aid doctrine). By contrast, the authority supporting a warrantless entry under facts similar to those presented here is both scarce and dubious. A few cases have allowed warrantless entries in cases involving water leaks. See State v Dube, 655 A2d 338 (Me, 1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v Boyd, 407 F Supp 693, 694

A: recognizing emergency exception
B: holding lawful a warrantless entry to combat a plumbing emergency and stop sewage or water from leaking into apartments below
C: holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence state has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative
D: holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry
B.