Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not contest the confinement, and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged.” Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 277, 46 L.Ed.2d 257 (1975) (internal citations omitted). The only element in dispute in the instant case is the last element — defendant argues that the arrest was privileged as a matter of law because it was supported by probable cause. Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d. Cir.2002) (“A § 1983 claim of false arrest based on the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures may not be maintained if there was probable cause for the arrest”); see also Bernard v. United States, 25 F.3d 98, 102 (2d Cir. 1994) ; Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 387 (2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest
B. holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a  1983 claim alleging false arrest
C. holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause
D. holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity
E. holding that existence of probable cause to arrest constitutes justification and is a complete defense to an action for false arrest  quoting bernard v united states 25 f3d 98 102 2d cir 1994
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.