Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on their face, were sufficient. Doc. Nos. 46 at 19-20 (“[T]he judgment already provides for exceptions, exemptions and means to further avoid its application to any person, ... and no person at this time is so situated that the disposition may as a practical matter impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest.”); 47 at 43-45 (distinguishing Vasquez as a case that dealt with the enforcement of a gang injunction order, rather than the facial validity of the order itself, and noting the “expectation that Los Angeles authorities will implement the injunction only lawfully and fairly”) (emphasis added). Here, however, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the City from enforcing the injunction against him by arguing th 91, (AFGE) v. Martin, 969 F.2d 788, 793 (9th Cir. 1992) . Moreover, even if Plaintiffs prior arguments
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights
B. holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment
C. holding that a us department of labor drug testing plan did not on its face violate the fourth amendment but emphasizing that the ruling did not preclude an as applied constitutional challenge
D. holding that a search of a students purse that was not based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment
E. holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.