With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Attaway, 117 N.M. at 145, 870 P.2d at 107; see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (applying de novo review to warrantless searches because “the legal rules for probable cause and reasonable suspicion acquire content only through application. Independent review is therefore necessary if appellate courts are to maintain control of, and to clarify, the legal principles”). {28} Accordingly, in the context of warrantless searches, de novo review is appropriate. However, for the reasons explained in Snedeker, de novo review is inappropriate when police officers submit their evidence to a neutral and detached magistrate and procure a search warrant prior to initiating a search. Cf. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 697, 116 S.Ct. 1657 (<HOLDING>). This is because deference to the warrant

A: holding that warrantless searches are reviewed de novo whereas searches conducted pursuant to a search warrant are reviewed under a less demanding standard
B: holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo
C: holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo
D: holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo
A.