With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of movement; their initial contact was not a stop. Nor was Officer Robinson’s observation of the inside of defendant’s pickup a search for constitutional purposes. In State v. Orlovski, 146 Or App 632, 933 P2d 976 (1997), we explained, “It is well settled that a police officer’s unaided observation, purposive or not, from a lawful vantage point is not a search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “ ‘[a]n officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle does not violate any occupant’s rights in walking around the vehicle and looking through the windows of the vehicle to observe that which can be plainly seen.’ State v. Jackson, 296 Or 430, 438, 677 P2d 21 (1984); see also State v. Wacker, 317 Or 419, 426-27, 856 P2d 1029 (1993) (<HOLDING>).” Id. at 636-37 (internal quotation marks and

A: holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes
B: holding that the prisoner should have been allowed to choose whether to leave his car parked in a public parking lot
C: holding that the presence requirement of the carjacking statute was satisfied when keys were taken from a bank employee whose car was parked in a parking lot outside the bank
D: holding that no privacy interest was invaded when the officers saw the defendants activities while he was parked in a tavern parking lot and seated in a vehicle with the console light on
D.