Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,” or (4) the warrant is “so facially deficient ... that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.” Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 (citations omitted). There is no evidence in the record that Officer Hayhoe made any misrepresentations to the issuing state court judge, nor did he make any statements in reckless disregard for the truth. The only incorrect information given to the state court judge was that Taylor’s apartment was unit # 4 instead of unit # 3. At the time it was given Officer Hay-hoe believed this information was correct. The officers did not search Taylor’s apartment (unit # 3) until after a corrected search warr L.Ed.2d 249 (1990); United States v. DeBardeleben, 740 F.2d 440 (6th Cir.) , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 448,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the structure purchased solely for demolition by the birmingham airport authority did not constitute a building for the purpose of thirddegree burglary
B. holding that the insertion of a key into the door of a car to see if it fit constituted the beginning of a search because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy
C. holding that mere insertion of key was not a search or at least not an unreasonable search protected by the fourth amendment
D. holding that insertion of a crowbar into the door of a suspects house by officers before they announced their presence constitutes an unreasonable search
E. holding that the insertion of a key into a lock solely for the purpose of identifying ownership does not constitute a search
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.