With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and as Gomez concedes, his initial detention was therefore justified. Nevertheless, despite conceding the validity of the traffic stop, Gomez contends that the smell of alcohol and a missing container from an otherwise undisturbed six-pack of alcoholic beverages did not constitute sufficient probable cause for a warrantless search of his car. 17 In Hallcy v. State, 2007 OK CR 2, ¶10, 158 P.3d 66, 68-69, we held in a slightly different context that the "test for judging the existence of probable cause is whether a reasonably prudent police officer, considering the totality of the circumstances confronting him and drawing from his-.experience, would be warranted in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed." We explained in Hallcy that "probable cause is a fle 492, 494 (<HOLDING>). 18 Gomez contends, however, that regardless

A: holding that an officer clearly had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle without a warrant based on the burning marijuana he smelled as he approached the car
B: holding that officer who smelled burning marijuana while approaching defendants vehicle stopped for tail light violation had probable cause to search for contraband
C: holding that officer who smelled odor of marijuana while approaching van validly stopped for failure to dim headlights had probable cause to search for contraband
D: holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle
B.