With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 274-75, 110 S.Ct. 1056; see also id. at 271, 110 S.Ct. 1056 (“[Ajliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.” (citation omitted)). The Verdugo-Urquidez court noted that a warrant requirement for overseas searches “could significantly disrupt the ability of the political branches to respond to foreign situations involving our national interest.” Id. at 273-74, 110 S.Ct. 1056. This holding forecloses Zakharov’s claim. Here, the alleged unconstitutional delay took place outside of the United States in international waters, and there is no suggestion that Zakharov had any substantial connection to this country. See United States v. Borona, 56 F.3d 1087, 1093-94 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because Zakharov cannot show that he is one

A: holding that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the citizens of minnesota from those who pose a severe threat to their health and safety citation omitted internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that the attorney generals discretionary power to suspend deportation did not apply to aliens within the country on parole because parole by statute was not to be regarded as an admission of the alien citation and internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that purpose of stop was complete upon the issuance of the citation
D: holding that fourth amendment protection does not apply to an alien until he has assumed the complete range of obligations that we impose on the citizenry quotation and citation omitted
D.