With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mich I, 297 Mich App at 604, 609-610. Plaintiffs’ claim of contractual impairment, newly asserted in the present case, focuses on the changes that 2012 PA 300 made to the pension benefits program. 6 Textual differences, state constitutional and common-law history, state law preexisting the constitutional provision at issue, structural differences between the Michigan and United States Constitutions, or matters of special state interest may compel us to conclude that the state Constitution offers protections distinct from those of the federal Constitution. People v Catania, 427 Mich 447, 466 n 12; 398 NW2d 343 (1986). We have, for example, interpreted the state Constitution more broadly on numerous occasions. Compare, e.g., Sitz v Dep’t of State Police, 443 Mich 744; 506 NW2d 209 (1993) (<HOLDING>), with Mich Dep’t of State Police v Sitz, 496

A: holding that forfeiture statute is subject to the fourth amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures
B: holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court
C: holding parolees right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was unaffected by his signing of the consent to search provision
D: holding that sobriety checkpoints are prohibited by const 1963 art 1  11 which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures
D.