Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
other elements required for a viable defamation claim under Louisiana state law. See Trentecosta v. Beck, 703 So.2d 552, 559 (La. 1997) (“Four elements are necessary to establish a defamation cause of action: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault (negligence or greater) on the part of the publisher; and (4) resulting injury.”); see also Lee v. Pennington, 830 So.2d 1037, 1045 (La. Ct. App. 2002) (concluding report of the plaintiffs arrest was neither false nor defamatory). Indeed, we have already concluded that there was probable cause for Thorn’s arrest, and under these circumstances, Louisiana law affords police officers a qualified privilege against defamation actions. See Trentecosta, 703 So.2d at 562-64 ; see also Roche v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 303
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
B. holding that merely declining to rehire a person did not constitute defamation for deprivation of liberty interest purposes absent any charges against the good name or reputation of that person
C. holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person
D. holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983
E. holding that police officers have a qualified privilege against defamation claims for reporting the fact that a person was arrested and the charges for which the person is being held
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.