Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the information school authorities had regarding defendant’s possession of the book. Id. at 792. In People v. Joseph G, 32 Cal.App.4th 1735, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 (1995), review denied June 14, 1995, a high school vice-principal received information from a parent that a student was in possession of a gun. Id. 38 Cal.Rptr. at 903. The vice-principal conducted a warrant-less search of the defendant’s locker and seized a gun. Id. at 903-904. The California Court of Appeal held that the lower court properly refused to exclude the gun because the vice-principal had a reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. Id. at 905-906. See also, In the Interest of Isiah B., 176 Wis.2d 639, 500 N.W.2d 637 (1993), cert. denied Isiah B. v. Wisconsin, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. ■ 231, 126 L.Ed.2d 186 (1993) ; Commonwealth v. Jeffrey Snyder, 413 Mass.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students
B. holding that random search of students locker was justified because there were shooting incidents on school grounds and school had policy allowing for searches of lockers for any reason
C. holding that where a high school student and the students mother received adequate notice of the charges had sufficient opportunity to prepare for the meeting with school personnel were accorded an orderly hearing and were given a fair and impartial decision no due process violation occurred even though the school failed to provide advance notice that the potential disciplinary actions included a transfer to another school
D. holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials
E. holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.