With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the ultimate determination of reasonableness de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir.1998). Mr. Salazar does not seriously dispute that the officers had probable cause to believe the Ford Explorer contained drugs. The statement by Ms. Hayes, and the drug detection dog alert, either singly or together, provided probable cause. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. at 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657 (“[P]robable cause to search [exists] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.”). See also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Blaze, 143 F.3d 585, 592

A: holding that a known informants statement can support probable cause even though the affidavit fails to provide any additional basis for the known informants credibility
B: holding that probable cause may be gleaned from the hearsay statements of informants
C: holding corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability
D: holding that probable cause can be established on the basis of unverified hearsay fleeting observations or by tips received by unnamed reliable informants
B.