With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring); see Edmond, 531 U.S. at 54, 121 S.Ct. 447 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting) (“The ‘special need’ doctrine ... is an exception to the general rule that a search must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.”). The “special needs” exception is often invoked as a corollary to the administrative search exception either to validate a general suspicionless and warrantless search or in specific situations where a search is required but obtaining a warrant would be impracticable. See Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 663-65, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (upholding suspicionless and warrantless drug testing because it provides an administrative process with a minimal amount of discretion); Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770-71, 86 S.Ct. 1826 (<HOLDING>). For example, the Supreme Court, in New Jersey

A: holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content
B: holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation
C: holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw
D: holding a warrantless blood test reasonable due to bloods rapid loss of its alcohol content
D.