Sam is engaged in the criminal activity of growing marijuana in his home. A couple of police officers while randomly passing through the neighborhood saw Sam go to the mailbox. They thought that he looked a little scruffy, and they were concerned that they had not made a sufficient number of arrests in the past month. They decided to "check out" Sam. Therefore, they immediately broke down Sam's door, searched his home, and arrested him. The police officer in charge told Sam that because marijuana was involved, he lost his rights against self$-$incrimination and that he might as well confess. Sam proceeded to confess to growing marijuana and a number of other crimes. The judge was so angry with Sam that he threw him in jail for two months without any kind of hearing. Sam's lawyer, who just graduated from law school, is not sure if the police acted legally in Sam's case by breaking down the door. Which of the following is true on that issue?

The police acted legally so long as they can show that Sam had been in jail previously for any offense.

The police violated Sam's Fourth Amendment rights.

The police acted legally so long as they can show that the street was truly chosen at random for patrol.

The police acted legally so long as they can show that Sam really did look scruffy.

The police acted legally so long as they can show that Sam had been in jail previously on a drug offense charge.