With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". interest in monitoring probationers. See Griffin, 483 U.S. at 876, 107 S.Ct. 3164. In Samson, the Supreme Court held that the state had a legitimate supervisory interest in warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees. Samson, 126 S.Ct. at 2200-01. Specifically, this interest was considered legitimate because parolees are more likely to commit crimes in the future, and expeditious supervisory measures are required in order to prevent parolees from having the opportunity to “anticipate searches and conceal criminality.” Id. at 2201. This rationale finds foundation in the impracticability of obtaining a search warrant, a rationale similar to the underlying motivation used to support the administrative or “special needs” exception. See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770, 86 S.Ct. 1826 (<HOLDING>). The search at issue in Samson involved a

A: holding that the court must consider the totality of the circumstance when determining whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant
B: holding a search permissible where the officer reasonably believed he faced an emergency situation that would result in the destruction of evidence
C: holding officer liable for deprivation of constitutional rights despite argument that officer although present was not in control of the situation
D: recognizing emergency exception
B.