With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". States v. Judge, 864 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th Cir.1989) (stating that Bertine “does not condemn all forms of police discretion, but only ‘evidentiary discretion which is exercised on the basis of suspicion of criminal activity”), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 918, 110 S.Ct. 1946, 109 L.Ed.2d 309 (1990). Because that requirement is met by the MPPD inventory search policy, Andrews has not shown that Adams violated the Fourth Amendment by searching Andrews’ notebook. See United States v. Walker, 931 F.2d 1066, 1068-69 (5th Cir.1991) (finding no Fourth Amendment violation where “police department had an established but unwritten inventory policy,” the purpose of which “was to protect the property of the owner and to reduce the potential liability of the police department”); Gallo, 927 F.2d at 819 (<HOLDING>). Andrews also argues, however, that no

A: holding that a qualitative statement that inventory was in good shape while defendants knew the contrary was actionable
B: holding that inventory search could not be condemned insofar as department policy permitted opening box for the standard purposes of inventory searches
C: holding that even though an inventory search was invalid the vehicle was properly impounded
D: holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes
B.