With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". defendant claimed that the officer’s “request for permission to ‘look through’ defendant’s automobile was so vague that defendant may not have understood the extent of the search.” Id. In rejecting that argument, the court stated that: Defendant stood beside his car expressing no concern during this thorough and systematic search.... At no time did defendant attempt to retract or narrow his consent. Failure to object to the continuation of the search under these circumstances may be considered an indication that the search was within the scope of the consent. Id. (emphasis added). See also Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d at 425-26 (stating that the defendant was “cooperative during the search” and upholding a search in which police punched a hole in a car’s trunk); Lopez, 777 F.2d at 546-48 (<HOLDING>). B. Because Chaidez gave McMullin permission

A: holding that where defendant consented to search of the glove box the trunk and the remainder of his vehicle and stood by without objecting when trooper searched beneath back seat of vehicle it was reasonable to conclude that defendants acquiescence indicated that the search was within the scope of the consent
B: holding that the defendant who stood by and watched as the officers searched the vehicle consented to a search during which officers checked under a cars seat looked in the cars glove compartment and removed a speaker by unscrewing it from a panel
C: holding that the presence of a gun in a cars passenger compartment supported the possibility that the cars trunk contained ammunition additional weapons andor other contraband
D: holding conviction for possession was supported by sufficient evidence when a firearm was found under the passenger seat where the defendant had been sitting and the arresting officer observed the defendant trying to place something in the glove compartment which when searched yielded an ammunition clip matching the gun under the seat
B.