With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the context of alleged violations of § 2517(5) relating to the state interceptions, see Section XII. 6. at 66-67, infra. 7 . In the state criminal proceeding, State of Florida v. Robert Gainer Jernigan, Jay Travis Jernigan, John Dennis Cason, Rudolph Lutz, Case No. 80-5687-CF, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, the Defendants’ Motion to Suppress the communications intercepted by the state wiretap were denied. See Order of October 30, 1981, Exhibit “F” to Government’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence (docket entry No. 700). 8 . The foregoing conclusion disposes of the contention that the contents of page 21C vitiate the showing of necessity under § 2518(3)(c). Although unrelated to the issues created by mi 701-03 (<HOLDING>). This Court adopts the view espoused in Marion

A: holding that the requirements of title iii apply and must be satisfied
B: holding that rule 23a requirements must be satisfied as if class were to litigate its claims
C: holding that alien need not receive actual notice for due process requirements to be satisfied
D: holding noneconomic harm satisfies article iii standing requirements
A.