Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24-25, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). The Supreme Court, in Schmerber v. California, addressed this issue directly and found that the compelled administration of a blood test falls within the reach and protections of the Fourth Amendment. 384 U.S. 757, 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Any forced extraction of blood, therefore, invades one’s expectation of privacy in bodily integrity, and its reasonableness must be adjudged under a Fourth Amendment analysis. In addition, when blood is extracted and analyzed to reveal information derived from one’s DNA, a second intrusion into one’s expectation of privacy occurs. See Skinner, 489 U.S. at 616, 109 S.Ct. 1402; Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 76, 121 S.Ct. 1281, 149 L.Ed.2d 205 (2001) . In Skinner, the Supreme Court held that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a warrant to obtain a blood sample was valid despite a reference to a urine sample in the addendum to the affidavit because the minor inconsistency did not seriously undermine the information underlying the probable cause determination
B. holding that a physician employed by the government who drew a blood sample from the defendant for medical not investigatory purposes did not conduct a search under the fourth amendment
C. holding that a test of a urine sample implicates the fourth amendment
D. recognizing problems with generalizing from an extremely limited sample when a broader sample  can be readily obtained and when no showing of the representativeness of the sample is made
E. holding blood sample does not constitute compelled testimony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.