With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". floor, below which a search must be presumed unreasonable”); Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989) (“neither a warrant nor probable cause, nor, indeed, any measure of individualized suspicion, is an indispensable component of reasonableness in every circumstance”). Although the United States Supreme Court has yet to address the validity of DNA collection statutes under the Fourth Amendment, as we just noted, state and federal courts that have are almost unanimous in holding that these statutes do not violate the Fourth Amendment. See cases cited in the persuasive opinion of Magistrate Judge Gorenstein in Nicholas v. Goord, 2003 WL 256774 (S.D.N.Y.2003). But see United States v. Kincade, 345 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Courts uphold these DNA collection statutes

A: holding that forced blood extractions from federal parolees pursuant to the federal dna analysis backlog elimination act violates the fourth amendment in the absence of individualized suspicion
B: recognizing that stateimposed restrictions upon property may be attributed to the federal government for purposes of a takings analysis where the state officials acted as agents of the federal government or pursuant to federal authority
C: holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment
D: holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court
A.