With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In finding DNA collection statutes constitutional, courts routinely focus on the government’s interest in creating a permanent identification record of convicted felons for law enforcement purposes. E.g., United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir.2007) (concluding that “government’s important interests in monitoring and rehabilitating supervised releasees, solving crimes, and exonerating innocent individuals outweigh Weikert’s privacy interests, given his status as a supervised releasee, the relatively minimal inconvenience occasioned by a blood draw, and the coding of genetic information that, by statute, may be used only for purposes of identification”); Padgett v. Donald, 401 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175, 185

A: holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells
B: holding that georgias legitimate interest in creating a permanent identification record of convicted felons for law enforcement purposes outweighs the minor intrusion involved in taking prisoners saliva samples and storing their dna profiles given prisoners reduced expectation of privacy in their identities
C: holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights
D: holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells
B.