With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". parking lot or moving it to a secure location at the Le-nexa Police Station” while seeking a warrant. Id. at 21. Mr. Salazar cites no case point which so limits the automobile exception established more than seventy-five years ago in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 155-56, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1924), and followed broadly since. See, e.g., Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-64, 119 S.Ct. 1555, 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) (“[W]hen federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to obtain a warrant prior to search.ing the car for and seizing the contraband.”). Motel parking lots openly available to public access are no exception to roadside stop cases. See United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d at 1528 (<HOLDING>). Despite defendant’s assertions, our holding

A: holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes
B: holding probable cause and exigent circumstances justified warrantless search of automobile where officers received information from an informant that defendants would be traveling in a vehicle containing illegal drugs and due to the lateness of the hour it would have been impractical to get a search warrant
C: holding that although the automobile exception is based in part on exigence where police have probable cause to search a ear they need not get a search warrant even if they have the time and opportunity
D: holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit
C.