With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". discovered them. And a reasonable officer could, therefore, conclude that the bags at the bottom of the stairs were likely to have been there prior to the arrival of law enforcement officials at the Glenwood residence. Under the circumstances, whether Heath actually saw the bags of cocaine at the bottom of the stairs before the police entered the Glenwood residence is of no import. He could see them, and in fact would be expected to see them, in the regular course of walking through the small home’s public spaces. As a result, a “person of reasonable caution,” Rogers, 129 F.3d at 79, could properly have concluded that Heath had committed or was committing a crime. After all, those who are permitted to observe obvious criminal activity in a home are, absent indications 6 (9th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766,

A: holding that the defendants proximity as an automobile passenger to unconcealed contraband provided the officer probable cause to arrest the defendant absent other countervailing facts
B: holding that arrest warrant permits police to enter residence of person named therein to make arrest
C: holding that probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view
D: holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein
D.