With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". any difficulties were created by the State. In support of his contention, Defendant merely asserts that the manufacturer of a particular machine, the Intoxilyzer, does not sell the machine to private persons. Moreover, the record fails to show that Defendant even attempted to obtain independent testing of his breath. Defendant did not offer any evidence that the State created the difficulty he identifies in obtaining a breath sample. Instead, the record shows that Defendant was informed of his right to seek an independent chemical test, but did not seek one. He could have obtained a blood test. Thus, the practical difficulty that Defendant identifies in obtaining an independent breath sample fails to create a due process violation. See Bolan, 187 Ariz. at 161-62, 927 P.2d at 821-22 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm

A: holding blood testing for alcohol content a search
B: holding that there is no federal due process right to present new evidence of actual innocence such as dna testing
C: holding that practical difficulties in securing transportation and finding and hiring experts for blood testing and analysis do not present due process violation
D: holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation
C.