Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
law enforcement efforts. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc); see also United States v. Brooks, 367 F.3d 1128, 1133 n. 5 (9th Cir.2004) (same). “Exigent circumstances alone, however, are insufficient as the government must also show that a warrant could not have been obtained in time.” United States v. Good, 780 F.2d at 775; see also United States v. Lai, 944 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir.1991) (“Exigency necessarily implies insufficient time to obtain a warrant; therefore the Government must show that a warrant could not have been obtained in time.”); United States v. Howard, 828 F.2d 552, 555 (9th Cir.1987) (same); United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1279 (9th Cir.1986) (same); United States v. Manfredi, 722 F.2d 519, 522 (9th Cir.1983) . Our definition of exigent circumstances is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search
B. holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry
C. holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence state has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative
D. holding that as part of showing that a warrantless entry was imperative the government must demonstrate that a warrant could not have been obtained in time even by telephone under the procedure authorized by fedrcrimp 41c2
E. holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate government acquiescence in part because he never reported alleged gang incidents to the government and therefore could not prove that the government was even aware of a problem
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.