With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that he is under arrest and handcuffed); State v. Clausen, 113 Wn. App. 657, 660-61, 56 P.3d 587 (2002) (finding custodial arrest when a detainee is told he is under arrest and will be released after booking)). In Radka, the defendant was told he was under arrest and placed in the patrol car, but without handcuffs. He was allowed to make numerous cell phone calls while he remained in the car. The court concluded that such circumstances would lead a reasonable detainee to believe that he was not under custodial arrest. Id. at 50. Consequently, although the officer had probable cause for a custodial arrest of the defendant, the lack of actual custodial arrest rendered the subsequent search of Radka’s car unconstitutional. See also State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 585, 62 P.3d 489 (2003) (<HOLDING>). ¶18 The circumstances surrounding Glenn’s

A: holding that the searehincidenttoalawfularrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest
B: holding that reasoning which would justify the arrest by the search and at the same time justify the search by the arrest  will not do
C: holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment
D: holding that a lawful custodial arrest is a prerequisite to a search since the arrest is the authority of law justifying the search
D.