With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the arrest warrant resides in the third party’s home and that he is actually present at the time of entry into the home. See United States v. Risse, 83 F.3d 212, 216 (8th Cir.1996); Perez v. Simmons, 900 F.2d 213, 213 (9th Cir.1990). The remaining question is what circumstances are sufficient to give officers a reasonable belief that a suspect named in an arrest warrant is both a co-resident of the home and present at the time of entry. We first address plaintiff Pryor’s illegal entry and detention claims. Whether the officers had a reasonable belief that Pryor was the suspect Burgess, and whether they therefore had a reasonable belief that Burgess was present in the Watts home, are mixed questions of law and fact. See, e.g., United States v. Allen, 235 F.3d 482, 488 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) We cannot say as a matter of law that it was

A: holding that the court did not err in concluding that a defendant was not in custody where he made statements to law enforcement officers in his own home was not physically restrained during the conversation never manifested an intent to terminate the interaction and the officers never indicated to the defendant that they had probable cause to arrest him
B: holding that the sound of a television on the inside of the house and the presence of a car in the driveway were sufficient to form the basis of the reasonable belief that the suspect was in the home
C: holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime
D: holding that the facts that the vehicle described in the tip was parked outside the home that allen gave inconsistent answers to officers questioning and that in addition the defendant fit the physical description of the suspect were sufficient to support the officers reasonable inference that the defendant was actually the suspect and therefore that there was probable cause to arrest him
D.