With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1991), decided four months before the search and seizure of Kaul’s store, the Court enumerated several options state officials could take if they sought to enforce a state tax on cigarettes sold on a reservation by Indians to non-Indians: We have never held that individual agents or officers of a tribe are not liable for damages in actions brought by the Stat 99, 66 S.Ct. 307, 308-09, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 643 n. 2, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 1397 n. 2, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977); Duro, 495 U.S. at 680-81 n. 1, 110 S.Ct. at 2057 n. 1. See also United States v. Baker, 894 F.2d 1144, 1146 (10th Cir.1990) (discussing McBratney exception to exclusive federal and tribal jurisdiction over Indian reservations); State v. Snyder, 119 Idaho 376, 807 P.2d 55, 56-58 (1991) (<HOLDING>); State v. Jones, 92 Nev. 116, 546 P.2d 235,

A: holding that state has jurisdiction to prosecute a nonindian for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol within the boundary of an indian reservation
B: holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation
C: holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation
D: holding state may not impose tax on nonindian trader operating on the reservation
A.