With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were reasonable under the circumstances, triable issues of fact would exist regarding whether the scope and degree of the state interference was justified by the alleged exigency. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447; Barlow, 943 F.2d at 1138 (“Police officers can proceed without a warrant if they reasonably believe they are confronted with an emergency that threatens life or limb, but the [intrusion] must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.”); Franz, 997 F.2d at 791 (intrusion must be “reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat”); Good, 891 F.2d at 1093 (under “very limited exception” to warrant rule, intrusion must be reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat of immediate harm); Hebein, 37 F.Supp.2d at 1043 (<HOLDING>). Merely because some intrusion on a child’s

A: holding that aggravating factors may justify increasing the degree of discipline imposed
B: holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable
C: holding that danger must justify the degree of interference imposed
D: holding hfo mandatory minimum sentence for robbery must run concurrently with sentences imposed for nonhfo first degree murder convictions
C.