With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". three officers observed that the green sedan had side windows that appeared to be tinted beyond the legal limit, and both Garcia and Char-bonier admitted that the windows were tinted. (Tr. at 155; GX 2.) The fact that Officer Argila never tested the windows with a “tint meter” to determine if they were, in fact, in violation of the law is immaterial, as only an objectively reasonable belief or suspicion of a violation, supported by articulable facts, is required. See Harrell, 268 F.3d at 149 (probable cause to stop car existed because “an ‘objectively reasonable’ police officer would have suspected the windows were tinted in violation of § 375(12 a)(b) of the Vehicle & Traffic Law”); accord Scopo, 19 F.3d at 781-82; see also United States v. Wallace, 213 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Officer Argila formed such a

A: holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself
B: holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant
C: holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it
D: holding that an officers misunderstanding of the tinting law was immaterial because the officer was not taking the bar exam the issue is not how well the officer understood californias window tinting laws but whether he had objective probable cause to believe that these windows were in fact a violation
D.