Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
must be supported by a new probable cause justification. See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407-08, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005); Arizona v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2509, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012) (“[D]elay[ing] the release of some detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status ... would raise constitutional concerns.”). Moreover, although Morales continued to be detained by ACI officials, and not by Donaghy himself, it was also clearly established that a law enforcement officer is “responsible for the natural consequences of his actions.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344 n. 7, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (quoting Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961)); see also id. at 344-45, 106 S.Ct. 1092 ; Torres Ramirez v. Bermudez Garcia, 898 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
B. holding that an officer who knowingly processed an invalid warrant could be held liable for the subsequent unlawful arrest
C. holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within
D. holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest
E. holding that an officer whose request for a warrant allegedly caused an unconstitutional arrest can be held liable for the arrest where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.