With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099, 1104-05 (6th Cir.1997); Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465, 471 (8th Cir.1995); Fernandez v. City of Cooper City, 207 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1380 (S.D.Fla.2002); Gainor v. Douglas Cnty., 59 F.Supp.2d 1259, 1287-88 (N.D.Ga.1998); Griffin v. City of Clanton, 932 F.Supp. 1359, 1369 (M.D.Ala.1996). 39 . Although Fils involved a taser, not chemical spray, the court found "no meaningful distinction between the two under the [present] circumstances.” 647 F.3d at 1289 (comparing Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir.2004) (stating that, while a taser shock is "unpleasant,” it “did not inflict any serious injury” on the plaintiff) with Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1348 (describing pepper spray as "generally of limited intrusiveness)). 40 . More specif 5 S.Ct. 2386 (<HOLDING>); Hazel-wood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S.

A: holding railroad regulation requiring random drug testing without particularized suspicion to be reasonable in light of connection to public safety
B: holding that a us department of labor drug testing plan did not on its face violate the fourth amendment but emphasizing that the ruling did not preclude an as applied constitutional challenge
C: holding that consensual random drug testing of students participating in extracurricular activities were searches under the fourth amendment even though they were not part of a criminal investigation and a positive test resulted only in suspension from participation
D: holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights
D.