Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ill. App. 3d at 396-97. The trial court ruled that the real reason that the officers went to the defendant’s home was to look for marijuana and that the theft investigation was just a ruse. This court agreed and also agreed that the officers’ misrepresentation was so unfair that it rendered the defendant’s consent invalid. Daugherty, 161 Ill. App. 3d at 400. We stated: “Where, as here, the law enforcement officer without a warrant uses his official position of authority and falsely claims that he has legitimate police business to cond 991) (finding consent invalid where the police officers misrepresented that, if the defendant would not consent to a search of his yacht, they could seize the yacht while they obtained a search warrant); People v. Bailey, 273 Ill. App. 3d 431, 437 (1995) ; People v. Cardenas, 237 Ill. App. 3d 584,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant
B. holding that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted
C. holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant
D. holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car
E. holding that consent was invalid where the defendant initially refused request for search and officers made unsupportable legal threat to detain the defendants bag
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.