With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Not asserting any other arguments in support of her claim, Amundsen has failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the toxicology exams violated a constitutional right. We therefore reverse the district court’s decision on this count. y For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . Amundsen did not elaborate on these latter two claims before the district court, and she does not raise them on appeal. 2 . Utah County, representing the sheriff's office, also moved for summary judgment because Amundsen failed to identify any county policy responsible for her deprivation of rights, and the district court granted the motion. Amundsen has not asserted a cross-appe 63 (Nev. 1987) (<HOLDING>). Simply because these indicia are often noted

A: holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement
B: holding that reasonable suspicion justified the field sobriety tests where the driver weaved across lanes stumbled out of the vehicle swayed while standing and admitted to drinking three beers
C: holding only reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a field sobriety test
D: holding that a car that moved from side to side left the paved portion of the road and weaved over the center of the road created reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated
B.