With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". need to attend to other assignments will always justify delay of this length. If, for example, the evidence showed the agent could have readily transferred his current case or his newly assigned responsibilities to someone else, our judgment -might be different. If, too, Mr. Wulf had not voluntarily relinquished the computer or someone had sought its return; our judgment might be different. To decide this case we need only hold (and only hold) that when an investigator obtains property by consent and retains it without objection, and when his search is delayed by virtue of having to attend to other and higher law enforcement priorities and no evidence suggests a reassignment was reasonably possible, a five-month delay isn’t constitutionally unreasonable. See Stabile, 633 F.3d at 236 (<HOLDING>); Mitchell, 565 F.3d at 1353 (holding a

A: holding that a twoday delay was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference and citing cases where no deliberate indifference was found after a sixteenday delay a sixday delay and a threemonth delay
B: holding threemonth search delay reasonable when officer was reassigned to another matter
C: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly rejecting a waiver argument where the motion to disqualify was filed after a threemonth delay
D: holding warrantless search of probationers home by law enforcement officer for investigatory purposes was reasonable when conditions of probation included a search term and search was supported by reasonable suspicion
B.