With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Fourth Amendment; the probation officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or the possession of contraband. The District Court decided the motion on the facts contained in the parties’ stipulation, Doc. 31-2, and denied it. Williams then pled guilty to one count of the indictment, and the court sentenced him to prison for eighteen months and a two-year term of supervised release. Williams appeals his conviction, arguing that because he was on probation for a previous conviction at the time, the search should have been based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or a reasonable suspicion that he had contraband. He contends that there is a lesser government interest in monitoring probationers than parolees, so there should be a differe 11th Cir. 2009) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>). In Knights, the Court held that a

A: holding warrantless search of probationers home by law enforcement officer for investigatory purposes was reasonable when conditions of probation included a search term and search was supported by reasonable suspicion
B: holding unanimously that a warrantless search of a probationers apartment that was supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized as a condition of his probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment
C: holding warrantless search of probationers home by probation officers based on reasonable suspicion was constitutionally permissible when conditions of probation required probationer to submit to home visits but not searches
D: holding a search of a probationers home pursuant to a wisconsin probation regulation was permissible under a special needs theory but not addressing whether the probationer had consented to the search under the regulation
C.