With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". lack of alternative explanation that “someone other than [the] defendant had introduced the methamphetamine into [the] defendant’s body,” established probable cause to arrest for possession of methamphetamine; as matter of objectively reasonable belief, officer was entitled to infer that the defendant had probably “possessed methamphetamine before introducing it into his body”), with State v. Morton, 151 Or App 734, 739, 951 P2d 179 (1997), rev den, 327 Or 521 (1998) (officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the defendant passenger had unlawfully possessed marijuana, notwithstanding the officer’s observations of the defendant’s appearance and behavior that were consistent with being under the influence of marijuana), and State v. Lavender, 93 Or App 361, 363, 364, 762 P2d 1027 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Accord State v. Holcomb, 202 Or App 73, 75,

A: holding police officer had probable cause to believe defendant was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol
B: holding that eyewitness accounts and an officers observations established probable cause
C: holding inter alia that experienced officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of either methamphetamine or cocaine did not by itself establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime
D: holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime
C.