With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". place in the home to be searched. Here, the undersigned has concluded that the GPS Warrant Application did not give rise to probable cause, because it failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the use of Schermerhorn’s car and the suspected drug trafficking activities. The only facts offered were that a known drug dealer (Nguyen) had been a passenger in Schermerhorn’s car, which was driven by a white male, on one occasion, to a known drug supplier’s residence. There is substantial precedent in the Eighth Circuit that officers can reasonably rely on search warrants that lack any connection between a drug trafficker and his home, and that the evidence seized is admissible under Leon. See, e.g., United States v. Pruett, 501 F.3d 976, 982 (8th Cir.2007) (overruled on other grounds) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Carpenter, 341 F.3d 666, 671

A: holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity
B: holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on the warrant
C: holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity
D: holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity
B.