With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". New Jersey Constitution which this Court has read to provide greater protection than is provided by its federal counterpart. In cases presenting an issue implicating Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 rights, this Court has considered whether our State Constitution is to be interpreted more expansively “than may be required by the [United States] Supreme Court’s prevailing interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 216, 463 A.2d 320 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1030, 104 S.Ct. 1295, 79 L.Ed.2d 695 (1984). We have, in certain circumstances, found that Article 1, Paragraph 7 affords greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Federal Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Pierce, 136 N.J. 184, 208-15, 642 A.2d 947 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 200-15, 576 A.2d

A: holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search
B: holding that vehicular search incident to arrest for traffic offense is unreasonable under state constitution
C: holding that strip search incident to arrest was not per se unreasonable but holding that search was performed in an unreasonable manner when conducted in view of the public
D: holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest
B.