With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proclaims [their] contents; [consequently,] the contents cannot fairly be said to have been removed from a searching officer’s view,” Robbins, 453 U.S. at 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841. Individuals, therefore, possess a lesser expectation of privacy in the contents of such containers when the container is observed from a lawful vantage point. There is some suggestion, however, that this does not end the inquiry of whether police may open the container without a warrant because the contents of a single-purpose container are not truly in plain view. In Arizona v. Hicks, the Court gave life to the idea that some lesser invasions of privacy might be justified without a warrant when part of the object is in plain view and police have probable cause to seize it. 480 U.S. at 325, 107 S.Ct. 1149 (<HOLDING>). The single-purpose nature of a container

A: holding that an officers movement of stereo components to examine their serial numbers was a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment
B: holding that probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view
C: holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein
D: holding that observance of stereo turntable in plain view did not justify police moving turntable in order to read its serial number when they lacked probable cause
D.