With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We do not reach the other grounds discussed by the district court in the disposition of this case. III. CONCLUSION We have reviewed Reyes’s claim that her supervisor’s conduct violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not consider whether Maschmeier’s conduct was unreasonable, because there was no seizure in this case. AFFIRMED. 1 . Drug Abuse Resistance Education. This is a program designed to teach elementary school children about the dangers of drugs. 2 . The injury was, however, covered by workers' compensation. 3 .Seizures of public employees, in circumstances dissimilar to those of this case, have been reviewed elsewhere. See, e.g., Driebel, 298 F.3d at 627; Aguilera v. Baca, 394 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1214 (C.D.Cal.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fagan, 28 M.J. 64, 69

A: holding that sheriffs deputies were not seized for fourth amendment purposes when ordered to remain at work to be questioned in connection with an internal investigation
B: holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc
C: holding that evidence seized in violation of a defendants fourth amendment rights was admissible for purposesof impeachment
D: holding that a fleeing motorist was not seized for fourth amendment purposes until the law enforcement officers were successful in stopping the motorist at a roadblock
A.