I'm leaning toward D but am looking for a second opinion.

6. Police officers were looking for an electronic tracker buried in money stolen a few minutes earlier in a bank robbery. They Complete Ald Hard barricaded 25 cars on reliable information that one of them had to be the bank robbers car. After two hours, they found the d in this p car with the signal, located the money, and arrested the driver. The trial court rejected bank robbers motion for suppression of MBELY the evidence. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the robber argued that the barricade was unconstitutional in that there in MBE So ject each was no particularized suspicion of the exact car. Will the Court likely affirm the lower courts denial of the motion to suppress ilevant se owed by the evidence? institute Now and A. B. BE 1 and be PDF Bar No, because the police did not have a reasonable suspicion as to which car the robber operated, thus making it an Yes, because the police had no other way to handle the unreasonable Fourth Amendment stop and search. situation and had no other way of finding the robber. C. D. No, because the public interest in privacy was more important Yes, because it is constitutionally reasonable to set up an than catching this one criminal. emergency roadblock to find and stop a criminal who is likely only, will fleeing by a specific route. ject an Law