Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as a general interpretive aid to the visual record. It also provides a physical exempler of the suspect’s manner of speech at the time of arrest. A jury may use the quality of the suspect’s speech as evidence of his degree of intoxication. Ability to enunciate words clearly can be highly probative of loss of “normal use of mental or physical faculties,” which the State must prove under Art. 67011-1(a)(2)(A), V.T.C.S. Similarly, a test of ability to read aloud can be probative in the case of a literate suspect. As long as the suspect’s statements are not used for their truth but as circumstantial evidence from which the jury may infer the degree of intoxication, the attending officers could testify about the statements anyway. Miffleton v. State, 777 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)  If testimony about the statements would be
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that visual depictions of a suspects appearance soon after arrest are admissible because officers could testify to the facts depicted
B. holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest
C. holding that police officers have probable cause to arrest an individual with a sufficiently similar appearance to the description in a warrant
D. holding that officers reasonable mistake as to a suspects identity entitled the officers to do what the law would have allowed had the correct suspect been arrested ie perform a search incident to arrest
E. holding an agents false statements reckless because she was aware of the true facts surrounding the suspects arrest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.