With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". after damage had accrued”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A constitutional challenge to any statute seeking declaratory relief striking down that statute “must be presented in the context of a specific live grievance.” Golden, 394 U.S. at 108, 89 S.Ct. 956. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to support a conclusion that an actual controversy exists. Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges that § 981(a) is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Eighth Amendment excessive fines clause. However, Plaintiffs fail to allege that they continue to structure their banking transactions or that they anticipate structuring their banking transactions in the immediate future. Further, Plain 4, 609 (D.Md.1983) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly concluded that

A: holding that a state courts finding that the prosecutor did not have probable cause to go forward with the charges did not necessarily mean that probable cause to make the initial arrest was lacking
B: holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same
C: holding that probable cause to believe certain individuals were members of a conspiracy did not give probable cause to search the contents of the room in which they were arrested
D: holding that former detainee who alleged that she had been stripsearched without probable cause before being incarcerated but who could not credibly allege that she would again be arrested and stripsearched without probable cause did not have standing to seek declaratory relief with respect to constitutionality of the strip search
D.