Downs was indicted in state court for bribing a public official. During the course of the investigation, police had demanded and received from Downs's bank the records of Downs's checking account for the preceding two years. The records contained incriminating evidence. On the basis of a claim of violation of his constitutional rights, Downs moves to prevent the introduction of the records in evidence. His motion should be
granted, because a search warrant should have been secured for seizure of the records.  granted, because the records covered such an extensive period of time that their seizure unreasonably invaded Downs's right of privacy.  denied, because the potential destructibility of the records, coupled with the public interest in proper enforcement of the criminal laws, created an exigent situation justifying the seizure.  denied, because the records were business records of the bank in which Downs had no legitimate expectation of privacy
Question: Downs was indicted in state court for bribing a public official. During the course of the investigation, police had demanded and received from Downs's bank the records of Downs's checking account for the preceding two years. The records contained incriminating evidence. On the basis of a claim of violation of his constitutional rights, Downs moves to prevent the introduction of the records in evidence. His motion should be
A. granted, because a search warrant should have been secured for seizure of the records. 
B. granted, because the records covered such an extensive period of time that their seizure unreasonably invaded Downs's right of privacy. 
C. denied, because the potential destructibility of the records, coupled with the public interest in proper enforcement of the criminal laws, created an exigent situation justifying the seizure. 
D. denied, because the records were business records of the bank in which Downs had no legitimate expectation of privacy
Answer: