With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). Diana Buchanan does not challenge the validity of the arrest warrant, the officers’ entry into her home, or the protective sweep of her house. Therefore, the applicability of the plain view exception in this case turns on whether the incriminating nature of the white powder residue was “immediately apparent” to the officers. Horton, 496 U.S. at 136-37, 110 S.Ct. at 2308. The incriminating nature of an item is “immediately apparent” if the officers have “probable cause” to believe that the item is either evidence of a crime or contraband. Hicks, 480 U.S. at 326-27, 107 S.Ct. at 1153. Probable cause does not require certainty. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1543, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (<HOLDING>). In reviewing probable cause determinations,

A: holding the fact that officers belief proved to be mistaken does not negate a finding of probable cause
B: holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause
C: holding that probable cause does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false
D: holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion
C.