Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of probable cause. Greene’s assertion that Houston had no personal, “first-hand” knowledge of the location of the stolen property is immaterial. Rather, the appropriate inquiry is whether the information in Lt. Hiller’s affidavit established a substantial basis for a finding by the magistrate that there was probable cause that the stolen property would be found at 2139/2141 Ashland. See Davidson, 936 F.2d at 859. Here, the perpetrator of the crime, under direct questioning from the affiant, stated that his partner (Arnold) disposed of the stolen property at 2139/2141 Ashland. Moreover, Lt. Hiller also averred that he had personal knowledge that stolen property was located at that dwelling. Such information is enough to support a finding of probable cause. Cf. Allen, 211 F.3d at 971-72 . Greene next argues that information from the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that a smell associated with pcp was enough to establish probable cause
C. holding statement by unidentified confidential informant with no connection to the crime observing possession of cocaine enough to establish probable cause
D. holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute
E. recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.