With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and walk away. See United States v. Mendoza-Cepeda, 250 F.3d 626, 628 (8th Cir.2001) (concluding that the defendant’s encounter with the police was consensual because “only two officers ... were present, no weapon was displayed, [the defendant] was not physically touched until after he consented to the touching of his torso, and the language used by [the approaching officer did] not indicate that [the defendant’s] compliance was compelled”). Perdoma also argues that Investigator Eberle had no legal basis for arresting him. Again, we disagree. Although the initial encounter was consensual, Eberle had probable cause to arrest Perdoma for marijuana possession once he detected the odor of marijuana emanating from Perdoma. See United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653, 659-60 (4th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Perdoma contends that his possession of less

A: holding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant a rear seat passenger of a car for possession of marijuana based on the discovery of two marijuana seeds in the front of the vehicle
B: holding that if an officer smells the odor of marijuana in circumstances where the officer can localize its source to a person the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed or is committing the crime of possession of marijuana and thus has authority to arrest him without a warrant in a public place
C: holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed
D: holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper
B.