With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, a warrantless seizure is lawful if (1) the officer views the evidence from a place where he has legal right to be, (2) it is immediately apparent that the items observed constitute evidence of a crime, are contraband, or are subject to seizure based upon probable cause, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the evidence itself. State v. Nance, 149 N.C. App. 734, 740, 562 S.E.2d 557, 561-62 (2002). With respect to the first element of the plain view doctrine, defendant challenges the trial court’s finding that Officer Roberts could see the coils from the porch - a location where, defendant concedes, Officer Roberts had a legal right to be. See State v. Prevette, 43 N.C. App. 450, 455, 259 S.E.2d 595, 600-01 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s finding of fact was

A: holding that rooming house residents had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the front hallway of the house they shared which was not obviously a rooming house open to the general public
B: holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene
C: holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch
D: holding officers legally entitled to be on front porch of defendants house for purpose of conducting general inquiry or interview
D.