With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 587; Skinner, 489 U.S. at 616-17, 109 S.Ct. 1402. The outcome of the balancing is largely determined by how the two weights in the balance are characterized. 1. Governmental Interest The cases that deal with searches of probationers generally and cases that directly address the issue of DNA collection appear to raise three possible governmental interests furthered by a regime of war-rantless, suspicionless seizures of DNA from probationers. Those governmental interests include a general supervisory in terest in probationers, see Griffin, 483 U.S. at 876, 107.S.Ct. 3164, prevention of recidivism through deterrence, see Kincade, 379 F.3d at 838-39, and the development and maintenance of a DNA database to assist in the solving of past and prospective crimes, Nicholas, 430 F.3d at 668 (<HOLDING>). In assessing the strength of the governmental

A: holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york
B: holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york
C: holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership
D: holding that the primary purpose of a new york statute creating a dna database was to assist in solving crimes
D.