With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because Thompson’s car was within the protected curtilage of his home — parked in his attached garage. (See R.189, at 10-12.) “The decision to impound an automobile, unless it is supported by probable cause of criminal activity, is only valid if the arrestee is otherwise unable to provide for the speedy and efficient removal of the car from public thoroughfares or parking lots.” Duguay, 93 F.3d at 351. 1. The Officers Had Probable Cause to Believe Thompson’s Car Was Subject to Seizure and Forfeiture Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment because Thompson’s vehicle was used in commission of an offense — aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer — that subjected his vehicle to forfeiture. See United States v. Pace, 898 F.2d 1218, 1241-42 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Police may seize vehicles without a warrant

A: holding that the vehicle of a recent occupant may be searched incident to arrest as an exception to the warrant requirement where it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
B: 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
C: holding that a vehicle may be seized without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that it is subject to forfeiture
D: holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within
C.