With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". inmate’s complaint that a prison superintendent reduced his charge on appeal. Like Mr. Boyd, Northern asserted that reducing the charge denied him notice of the charge against him and the opportunity to defend against the lesser charge. Northern had admitted to investigators that he helped smuggle tobacco into the prison and was originally charged with conspiracy and bribery. Superintendent Hanks reduced the charges to attempted trafficking. The Seventh Circuit held that because the original report “gave Northern all the information he needed to defend against the trafficking charge, the reviewing authority’s modification did not deprive Northern of his due process rights,” Northern v. Hanks, 326 F.3d 909, 911, citing with approval Holt v. Caspari, 961 F.2d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The original disciplinary charge against Mr.

A: holding that even an officers testimony concerning appearance and smell of illegal contraband based on experience is sufficient to prove the contraband is illegal
B: holding that a prison disciplinary committee did not deny an inmate due process by elevating charge from possession of contraband to possession of dangerous contraband because the factual basis for both charges was the same
C: holding that officers had probable cause to arrest driver and two passengers where cocaine and contraband were found in glove compartment and backseat armrest of vehicle and none of the men offered any information regarding the ownership of the drugs and contraband on the ground that the drugs and contraband could have been in the possession of any one of the three vehicle occupants or all three of them jointly
D: recognizing innocent possession defense to a charge of criminal weapons possession
B.