With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". officer’s informal promise of immunity. The State points out that police officers, acting on their own, have no authority to grant immunity or make binding promises of non-prosecution. Green v. State, 857 P.2d 1197, 1201 (Alaska App.1993). However, the State’s argument misses the point. The police asked Marino to waive his Fourth Amendment rights and voluntarily give them body samples. He was free to refuse and demand that the police obtain a warrant, but the police convinced him to consent by promising that the samples would not be used to establish his guilt of drug offenses. This was not a promise of immunity; rather, it was a statement that the police were seeking only a limited waiver of Marino’s Fourth Amendment rights. See State v. Binner, 131 Or.App. 677, 886 P.2d 1056 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The State further points out that, having

A: holding that the implied consent statutes are irrelevant when the defendant gives actual consent to a blood or breath test
B: holding that under the oregon constitution when a person consents to have their blood drawn and tested for specified substances the scope of that consent limits the scope of the states power to test the blood without a warrant
C: holding blood test taken for independent medical purpose is not same as blood test taken pursuant to section 3755a
D: holding defendants consent to have blood tested under procedure specified in implied consent statute waived physicianpatient privilege as against admission of the test results into evidence in any subsequent trial stating the physicianpatient privilege was not designed nor will it be extended to act as a shield behind which the patient may take refuge after flunking a chapter 321b blood alcohol test to which he voluntarily assented
B.