With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 85 (1984)). Herein, it is questionable whether McDonough interfered with the Defendant's possessory interest in the Express Mail package in a meaningful way before Judge Merz issued the search warrant for that pack ue that the Express Mail package was not seized, the Court does not base its decision herein on that issue. 6 . If McDonough had been investigating packages mailed to Defendant because he was suspected of trafficking cocaine, heroin, marijuana, hash, methamphetamine and/or ecsta-cy, the failure of Rusty to alert on the package might very well have annulled her reasonable suspicion. 7 . Previous violations of a statute can give rise to probable cause to seize a person or to conduct a search. See Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) (<HOLDING>). 8 . In particular, Defendant requests

A: holding in an  unpublished opinion that information that the registered owner of a vehicle had previously been arrested for smuggling and was involved in a smugglingrelated seizure along with information that a border patrol alert had been issued regarding one of the passengers in the vehicle was relevant and probative to the reasonable suspicion analysis
B: holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop
C: holding that probable cause to believe certain individuals were members of a conspiracy did not give probable cause to search the contents of the room in which they were arrested
D: holding that probable cause to stop a vehicle was supported by the fact that the defendant had previously been arrested for illegally transporting liquor
D.