With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is thus a more stringent test, adding a threshold step to the totality-of-the-circumstances test and requiring the court to first identify some “special need beyond the normal need for law enforcement” before undertaking a balancing of interests. Amerson, 483 F.3d at 79 n. 6. In the wake of the Samson ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld a suspi-cionless search of a parolee without bothering to identify any special need, courts have viewed Samson as affirmatively signaling that the totality-of-the-cireum-stances test is the appropriate test for assessing the reasonableness of suspicion-less DNA collection requirements as applied to parolees and supervised releasees. Kriesel, 508 F.3d at 946-47; Weikert, 504 F.3d at 9; Banks, 490 F.3d at 1185. But see Amerson, 483 F.3d at 78-79 (<HOLDING>); Hook, 471 F.3d at 772-73 (applying

A: holding requirement that a prisoner agree to search condition of parole is reasonable in light of the parolees significantly diminished privacy interests
B: holding the specialneeds test remains the proper framework for analyzing the constitutionality of a dnaindexing statute when applied to probationers whose privacy interests are not as diminished as those of parolees
C: holding parole officer could extract consent from parolees sister prior to parolees release
D: holding that probationers who sign consenttosearch agreements have a  severely diminished expectation of privacy  in connection with their supervision by probation officers
B.