Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a blood specimen to police after they properly secured that specimen from appellee for medical purposes. Where a non-governmental party has “a legitimate independent motivation” for engaging in the challenged conduct, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. See United States v. Attson, 900 F.2d 1427, 1433 (9th Cir.1990) (concluding that for the conduct of a party to be subject to the Fourth Amendment that party must have acted with the intent to assist the government in its investigations for administrative purposes and not for an independent purpose). Consequently, evidence obtained by private parties and turned over to the police is not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475, 41 S.Ct. 574, 576, 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921); Attson, 900 F.2d at 1433 . There is no evidence before this Court that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment
C. holding that impoundment of a vehicle can be a seizure under the fourth amendment
D. holding that doctor who drew blood for purely medical reasons did not possess the requisite intent to engage in a search or seizure under the fourth amendment
E. holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.