With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of these circumstances, the trial court reasonably concluded that the police officers were lawfully on Rush’s premises to investigate the suspected underage drinking party. As a result, neither the police officers’ warrantless entry into Rush’s yard or their subsequent observation of the beer and liquor containers through the basement window violated Rush’s Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, we reject Rush’s argument that the police officers’ actions were improper. See Trimble, 842 N.E.2d at 801 (recognizing that a police officer’s observation or inspection of contraband during the course of a legitimate investigation does not necessarily result in an unconstitutional search); see also Kendall v. State, 825 N.E.2d 439 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), ajfd in part and vacated in part on other grounds (<HOLDING>). II. Search of the Residence In a related

A: holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business
B: holding that when a police officer observes something from an area where the officer is lawfully entitled to be anything that is in open view may be observed without having to obtain a search warrant because making such open view observations does not constitute a search in the constitutional sense
C: holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession  for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent
D: holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant
B.