With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to seize the wallet because the wallet itself was not an item described in the search warrant. That items described in the warrant were ultimately found in the wallet does not justify the initial seizure. A search warrant does not give the police license to seize personal property not described in the warrant on the ground that such property might contain items that the warrant does describe; it only allows police to search such property at the place where the warrant is being executed if the property “legitimately might contain the [items] specified in the warrant,” and then to seize the described items they find inside or, under certain circumstances, the property itself once it is found to contain described items, see United States v. Beusch, 596 F.2d 871, 876-77 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). See id. (emphasis in original, footnotes and

A: holding that the trial court erred in ruling for driver because the directors records were incomplete the missing pages were not necessary for the trial court to find that probable cause existed based on the uncontroverted facts contained in the officers narrative report
B: holding that officers were entitled to rely on the judicial officers finding of probable cause in issuing the search warrant unless they knowingly made false statements to obtain the warrant and that a challenge to the adequacy of the officers investigation does not rise to level of clearly established constitutional violation
C: holding that police officers have probable cause to arrest an individual with a sufficiently similar appearance to the description in a warrant
D: holding that officers could seize entire ledgers once they discovered that some of the individual pages matched warrant description officers need not examine the entire ledger on the spot and then remove relevant individual pages
D.