With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — was visible from the location of the first sign. The operational plan to be implemented by the checkpoint was two-fold. Law enforcement officers stationed at the checkpoint itself were to request and examine motorists’ driver’s licenses and vehicle registration cards and be alert for impaired drivers. In addition, narcotics officers observing from unmarked vehicles nearby were to watch for motorists who threw items out of their vehicles or who made u-turns or other evasive actions upon seeing the “K-9 CHECK POINT AHEAD” signs. The narcotics officers planned to investigate any vehicle involved in such conduct. The narcotics on was properly admitted as evidence seized pursuant to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Nelson, 102 F.3d 1344, 1346

A: holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment
B: holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment
C: holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest
D: holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment
D.