With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and took apart the choke assemblies of the M-l and J-8 wells. Appellees thus exercised “dominion and control ... for their own purposes” over property in which Auster enjoyed a possessory interest, and their behavior thus “clearly constituted a ‘seizure’ ” under Auster’s allegations. Jacobsen, — U.S. at- n. 18, 104 S.Ct. at 1660 n. 18. Auster also sufficiently alleged a search. Auster had a legal right to control the course over which it routed the transmission of oil and gas as part of its operational rights and responsibilities. Appel-lees point us to no law that compelled Aus-ter to direct the flow over a particular route or one that made deviation from such a route illegal and, hence, illegitimate for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Jacobsen, — U.S. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 1662 (<HOLDING>). Thus, although Auster’s property rights do

A: holding that in prosecution for possession of a controlled substance cocaine possession of cutting reagents used to dilute cocaine and heroin was not other crimes evidence because possession of these substances is legal
B: holding that the government need not prove that the defendant actually knew the exact nature of the substance to establish mens rea knowledge of drugs illegality is sufficient
C: holding that illegality of cocaine possession rendered illegitimate any expectation that nature of substance would remain private after government lawfully obtained it
D: holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance
C.