With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law enforcement are “familiar” with Defendant and that Defendant ,1s known “as a dealer of methamphetamine;” and (3) a report from a confidential informant that at an unspecified location in the past six months, he purchased drugs from Defendant. The Court will address each of these in turn. First, Defendant’s prior drug convictions do not establish probable cause. Defendant’s criminal history, according to the affidavit, includes a 2003 conviction' for possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia and a 2004 conviction for possession of a Schedule II, drug. (Doc. 16-2 at 11), The Sixth Circuit has been clear that drug-related convictions from the distant past are insufficient to justify a search of a defendant’s residence. See United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375, 394 n. 3 (6th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Second, as to Defendant’s alleged reputation

A: holding that something more than mere presence in the car in which drugs are found is required to sustain a conviction for the substantive offense of possession with intent to distribute
B: holding that a district court errs by admitting a twelveyearold drug conviction to prove intent in a subsequent drug prosecution
C: holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
D: holding in regard to a criminal defendants 1999 conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana that a twelveyearold conviction hardly proves that the defendant was dealing drugs at the time of his arrest
D.