With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Briggs is not substantially different from that in Brooks, quoted above. Compare Briggs, 666 N.W.2d at 578-80, with Brooks, 604 N.W.2d at 349-50. Briggs suggests that “sufficient sureties” means a “defendant was given the right to be bailed, subject to the state’s analysis of a surety’s sufficiency to provide adequate recompense if the prisoner did not show for his judicial proceedings.” 666 N.W.2d at 582. As explained above, this is a dubious proposition. ¶24 Perhaps more problematically for the State, the Briggs court “[ultimately” believed that “the core purpose of the clause was to guarantee a bailable individual access to a surety of some form.” Id. at 581. It concluded that a cash-only bail “ cash bail violates Minnesota’s sufficient sureties clause); Golden, 546 So. 2d at 502-03 (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the discussion in these cases is

A: holding allcash bail violates louisianas sufficient sureties clause
B: holding that rluipa violates establishment clause
C: holding that  16913a violates the commerce clause
D: holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause
A.