With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 230 (1994) (quoting State v. Knowlton, 123 Idaho 916, 918, 854 P.2d 259, 261 (1993)). We agree with Prelwitz that this issue presents a claim of fundamental error. The non-existence of a probation condition that the State alleges to have been violated certainly “go[es] to the foundation of the case” in a probation violation proceeding. To accept a defendant’s admission to violating a term that was never part of his probation agreement is, we believe, taking from the defendant a right “which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive.” Manifestly, revoking probation for violation of a non-existent term of which the defendant had no notice is not consistent with due process. See Douglas v. Buder, 412 U.S. 430, 93 S.Ct. 2199, 37 L.Ed.2d 52 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Because this amounts to an issue of

A: holding that failure to report to probation office as instructed was not willful violation of probation where probationer was imprisoned at time of scheduled appointment
B: holding that the special needs of wisconsins probation system justified a warrantless search of a probationer by probation officers pursuant to a wisconsin regulation that allowed probation searches based on reasonable grounds
C: holding that failure to file a monthly report was not deliberate violation of probation where probationer was incarcerated
D: holding that it was a deprivation of due process to find that a probationer had violated probation by failing to immediately report that he had received a traffic citation where such reporting was not required as a term of the probation
D.