Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to be credible and concludes that the deputies came no closer than 120 feet from Building 2 — and thus no closer than 240 feet from the residence — on the night of May 30, 2003. Standing in isolation, the fact that the deputies were approximately 240 feet from Building 1 does not rule out the possibility that the deputies intruded upon the curti-lage. As the Second Circuit has observed, “[o]n a large parcel of land, a pond 300 feet away from a dwelling may be as intimately connected to the residence as is the backyard grill of the bloke next door.” United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271, 1277, on reh’g, 91 F.3d 331 (2d Cir.1996). Nonetheless, even in rural areas, it is rare for curtilage to extend more than 100 feet beyond the home. See, e.g., Dunn, 480 U.S. at 297, 302, 107 S.Ct. 1134 ; United States v. Van Damme, 48 F.3d 461, 464
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that deputies who approached within 90 feet of a rural residence were not within the boundaries of the curtilage
B. holding canine sniff of an unattended vehicle parked outside the curtilage of defendants home was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment
C. recognizing federal enclave remains within geographic boundaries of state
D. holding that a warrantless search of garbage located within the curtilage of the defendants home violated his fourth amendment rights
E. holding that aerial observation of a greenhouse within the curtilage from a helicopter passing at an altitude of four hundred feet did not violate owners reasonable expectation of privacy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.