With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Gen. Laws § 21—28—4.01(c)(2)(iii). Based on this change, the Defendant argues that law enforcement officers should be precluded from considering the smell of marijuana when determining if reasonable suspicion exists. (Def.’s Mot. to Suppress 16-17.) The Defendant cites to a case from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for support. (Id. at 19-20.) For starters, and to state the obvious, the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts do not bind this Court, particularly when there is a First Circuit case that is controlling on this issue. Moreover, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts declined to adopt the same rule as the state court, citing Staula. See United States v. Thompson, No. 12-10365, 2014 WL 108312, at *3 (D. Mass. Jan. 13, 2014) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, although it too would not be

A: holding that the odor of marijuana is still a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances analysis
B: holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances
C: holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances
D: holding that the level of detail in testimony is a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances test of credibility employed by immigration judges
A.