With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we must remember that, at all times, “[t]he Iowa Constitution is the cornerstone of governing in Iowa.” Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 875 (Iowa 2009). In the final analysis, our right under principles of federalism to stand as the final word on the Iowa Constitution is settled, long-standing, and good law. See Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d at 281-86, 287-91 (rejecting the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as permitting warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees based on parole status alone); Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 579 (Iowa 1980) (“The result reached by the United States Supreme Court in construing the federal constitution is persuasive, but not binding upon this court in construing analogous provisions in our state cons 263, 264 (1974) (<HOLDING>); State v. Davis, 191 S.W.3d 118, 122

A: holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence
B: holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause
C: holding condition of probation requiring probationer to consent at any time to a warrantless search by a law enforcement officer was unconstitutional
D: holding state has burden of showing exception to prohibition against warrantless searches applies
A.