With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". confidential source and the fact that Cleland “further investigated [Defendant's household income, assets, debts, and continuing expenses to determine that [Defendant’s continuing lifestyle was above and inconsistent with his means.” The district court concluded “[o]ne could reasonably expect to see evidence of continuing and unexplained wealth or affluent lifestyle from someone involved in continuous trafficking of drugs.” Cleland’s knowledge of the confidential informant’s tip, corroborated with the facts of which he became aware through his subsequent investigation of Defendant’s financial situation, constituted articulable facts, objectively judged, that could lead a reasonable person to believe a violation of a condition of probation occurred or was occurring. See id. ¶¶ 6, 16-17 (<HOLDING>); cf. State v. Gonzales, 1999-NMCA-027, ¶

A: holding an informants tip can establish reasonable suspicion without investigative confirmation if the tip is credible
B: holding that a known informants statement can support probable cause even though the affidavit fails to provide any additional basis for the known informants credibility
C: holding corroboration is not a necessity where confidential informants reliability was well established and his tip was based on direct personal observation of criminal activity
D: holding an informants tip if questionable can be corroborated by the observation of lawful conduct
D.