With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the circumstances, a reasonably prudent and cautious police officer would be justified in believing that appellant would not go to such trouble if the box contained only matches. Id. at 559. The majority contends Wadley and Arnold are distinguishable, and therefore inapplicable, because the searches or seizures in those cases occurred in public places rather than a private residence. Hoffman v. State, Nos. 04-08-00614-CR & 04-08-00615-CR, 293 S.W.Sd 633 (Tex.App.-San Antonio May 13, 2009). However, the location of the search or seizure is of no moment in the probable cause determination. Location is important only in determining whether exigent circumstances are required for entry into a particular place without a warrant. See Parker v. State, 206 S.W.3d 593, 597 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>); Janicek v. State, 634 S.W.2d 687

A: recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement
B: holding that in the absence of exigent circumstances the police may not enter a private residence to make a routine arrest
C: holding that state must prove exigent circumstances justifying immediate need to enter residence without warrant
D: recognizing that  exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant
C.