With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to review the independent action of a probation officer which was directly contrary to the published guidelines of the U.S. Probation Office. Ms. Keenan cannot plausibly argue that her random, unauthorized and illegal conduct provides a basis for a legitimate or reasonable governmental interest sufficient to warrant the intrusion on Mr. Herring’s privacy rights which occurred here. It is true that violation of internal guidelines, or even state laws, does not undermine a qualified immunity defense where the constitutional right was not otherwise clearly established. See Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984). Such violations may be considered, however, where they are relevant to the constitutional interest itself. See id. at 193 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 3012 (<HOLDING>). Ms. Keenan’s violation of her own guidelines

A: recognizing existence of two tests
B: recognizing that laws and regulations may bear upon the existence of a constitutional interest
C: recognizing the existence of the special relationship
D: recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation
B.