With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cases suggest that the ADA is inapplicable to arrests because an arrest is not the type of service, program, or activity from which a disabled person could be excluded or otherwise denied a benefit. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.1997) (‘We agree with the Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that although ‘incarceration itself is hardly a ‘program’ or ‘activity’ to which a disabled person might wish access, ... there is no doubt that an educational program is a program, and when it is provided by and in a state prison it is a program of a public entity.)’ ” (citing Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir.1997)), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937, 118 S.Ct. 2340, 141 L.Ed.2d 711 (1998); Rosen v. Montgomery County Maryland, 121 F.3d 154, 157 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Rylee v. Chapman, 2008 WL 3538559, slip

A: holding that statute prohibiting driving while intoxicated applied to defendant driving on a private parking lot
B: holding that police officers who instructed an intoxicated and unlicensed teenager who was a passenger in a vehicle operated by his intoxicated relative to drive the vehicle home rather than go through the effort of preparing arrest paperwork for the two intoxicated subjects were immune from liability for damages resulting from deaths of two innocent motorists and injuries to another cause by the drunk driving relative
C: holding that misdemeanor drunk driving by its very nature involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injuiy to another
D: holding in a case involving a deaf person arrested for drunk driving that calling a drunk driving arrest a program or activity of the county the essential eligibility requirements of which in this case are weaving in traffic and being intoxicated strikes us as a stretch of the statutory language and of the underlying legislative intent
D.