With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 174 P.3d 706 (2008), the Washington Court of Appeals considered whether the forensic search of a computer which extended beyond ten days was unconstitutional. The officers obtained a search warrant on March 5 to search Grenning’s residence for his computer. On March 6 the officers entered Gren-ning’s residence and seized his computer. The officers conducted continuing forensic examinations of the computer for more than ten days after the date the search warrant had been issued. The court noted that, because computer searches usually occur at different locations than where the computer is seized and involve more preparation and expertise than an ordinary search, delays in the forensic examination of computers are expected and reasonable. Id., at 713-14. The court he 481 (D.P.R.2002) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 453 Mass. 102, 899

A: holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home
B: holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
C: holding the search of a computer after the warrant had expired constitutional because despite the delay probable cause for the search continued to exist
D: holding the search of defendants home took place within the time designated in the warrant and later examination of computer disks seized did not make the search unconstitutional
D.