With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". agent. Id. at 13-14, 68 S.Ct. at 369 (footnotes omitted); see also Steelman, 93 S.W.3d at 112-13 (Cochran, J., concurring) (quoting from this passage); Barocio, 117 S.W.3d at 23 & n. 1, 2003 WL 21402504, at *3 & n. 1 (same). As in Johnson, Estrada did not initially respond when Baladez identified himself and sought entry into the house. Also as in Johnson, Baladez heard people moving about inside the house. This evidence, combined with the smell of drugs, did not justify a warrantless entry in Johnson and it does not do so here. Although there was other evidence in this case that might raise an officer’s suspicions, we conclude that the evidence does not rise to the level necessary to support a warrantless search of a home. See Barocio, 117 S.W.3d at 23-24, 2003 WL 21402504, at *1, 4 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, we

A: holding based on steelman and johnson that evidence of the smell of marijuana emanating from a home a car with an open door and the keys in the ignition in front of the home and pry marks on the homes front door was not sufficient to justify a warrantless entry
B: holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch
C: holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search
D: holding that the warrantless entry was permissible where the officers knew the defendant was inside had been involved in a serious accident was bleeding and where they received no response after knocking on the front door for several minutes entered the residence
A.