With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Corcoran contended: The testimony of Officer Link established that Keith Betham made contact with [Corcoran] shortly after his arrest at the Seminole County Jail. Keith Bet-ham was present for the observations of [Corcoran] and could testify whether or not [Corcoran] exhibited any signs of impairment at or near the time of his arrest. Corcoran contends that the hearing officer erred in concluding that the potential testimony of BTO Betham was irrelevant and that the trial court’s error “effectively quashed his subpoena,” thereby depriving Corcoran of his procedural due process rights. In a final order entered February 7, 2013, a three-judge hicles, No. CI96-3994 (Fla. 9th CSr.Ct.1997), Aff'd, without opinion, 711 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), 711 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, per Rule 15A-6.015(2)(b) of the

A: holding that taxpayer who is the target but not the recipient of an administrative subpoena pursuant to 26 usc  7602 may challenge the subpoena
B: holding that a defendant claiming immunity pursuant to section 7760321 florida statutes must file a motion to dismiss pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3190b and requiring trial court to address the motion at a pretrial evidentiary hearing
C: holding that a denial of an order to quash a subpoena not directed to a movant was a final order if the movant had no further opportunity to challenge the subpoena
D: holding that a hearing officer may not quash a subpoena for a fact witness pursuant to section 32226152 florida statutes and rule 15a60135 florida administrative code and the defense has the absolute right to subpoena other witnesses to testify as to whether or not the defendant exhibited any signs of impairment at or near the time of arrest
D.