Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to consider Harris’s invitation to presume malice under these circumstances, Harris has not established another key element of Ohio’s malicious-prosecution claim — the lack of probable cause — for any of the three counts with which he was charged. First, a reasonable factfinder could fairly conclude that the officers had probable cause to charge Harris with criminal assault under Ohio Revised Code § 2903.13(a), which proscribes “knowingly causfing] or attempt[ing] to cause physical harm to another.” Ohio Rev.Code § 2903.13(a); see also Ohio Rev.Code § 2901.22(b). State prosecutors brought the assault charge against Harris in state court only after obtaining an indictment, which establishes “prima facie evidence of probable cause,” Carlton, 662 N.E.2d at 1121, t th Cir. Apr. 4, 1994) . In attempting to escape the reach of these
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in a nonohiolaw case that probable cause existed where plaintiff shoved police officer in the chest
B. holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause
C. holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question
D. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law
E. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for trespassing under state law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.