With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Deemer, 354 F.3d 1130, 1132 (9th Cir.2004) (describing the emergency exception); or pursuant to a carefully circumscribed warrant, cf. United States v. Tamura, 694 F.2d 591, 595-96 (9th Cir.1982) (permitting, in some instances involving intermingled documents, the seizure of many documents followed by the ability to seek a warrant for material not initially covered by a warrant). After OFAC has blocked the assets so that asset flight is foreclosed, OFAC then can obtain a warrant specifying the particular assets. In any event, OFAC has not given us any reason why it could not have obtained a warrant here. We hold that the “special needs” exception does not apply to the seizure of AHIF-Oregon’s assets by OFAC under EO 13,224. See KindHearts II, 647 F.Supp.2d at 879-82 (<HOLDING>). 2. “General Reasonableness” Test OFAC also

A: holding that drug testing of customs employees falls within the special needs exception for similar reasons
B: recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
C: recognizing special circumstances exception
D: holding that the special needs exception did not apply to very similar facts
D.