Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Problem:factor here contributing to a reasonable suspicion of drug-related illegal activity. The record indicates that at the time of the traffic stop, VanEl ouden was already known to the deputies as someone suspected of involvement in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Deputy Eichinger testified that, based on his training and experience in drug crime investigation, he was familiar with ether as an ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine. At the time Deputy Eichinger smelled ether, he also saw a covered object between Wilson's feet that was large enough to contain implements used to manufacture methamphetamine. This combination of factors, we believe, formed an adequate basis for Deputy Eichinger's reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359, 362 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lopez, 777 F.2d 543, 551
Holding statements: (A) holding that although pcp has no odor because streetlevel pcp is mixed with other substances that have a distinct odor an officers recognition of that odor was sufficient to establish probable cause (B) holding the odor of patchouli oil the officers knowledge that the oil was often used to mask the odor of illegal drugs and the officers learning from the dea that the driver was suspected of involvement in drug smuggling gave rise to reasonable suspicion (C) holding that officers observation of a known drug dealer approaching the defendants car gave rise to reasonable suspicion (D) holding the odor of an etherlike substance in combination with other circumstances gave officers probable cause to search a vehicle (E) holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper
Solution:
holding that although pcp has no odor because streetlevel pcp is mixed with other substances that have a distinct odor an officers recognition of that odor was sufficient to establish probable cause