Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or limb of the officer or another may result, and has included in the warrant a direction that the officer executing it is not required to give such notice. [¶ 18] Probable cause determinations must be made after reviewing the facts. presented in a particular case. State v. Van Beek, 1999 ND 53, ¶ 15, 591 N.W.2d 112. It is no longer sufficient to merely allege drugs are present to justify issuance of a no-knock warrant. Herrick I, 1997 ND 155, ¶ 21, 567 N.W.2d 336 (overruling per se rule permitting no-knock warrant in all drug case). “[P]roba-ble cause is not established for a no-knock search warrant where the reviewing court is given information indicating nothing more than probable cause [that] an easily disposable drug is located in a suspect’s residence.” Van Beek, at ¶ h Cir.2001) . However, such circumstances were not shown in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding sufficient to support conviction under  924c evidence of loaded assault rifle recovered from location near where defendants drug transactions were known to occur
B. holding exigent circumstances demonstrated because officers knew defendant stored drugs in room across from the bathroom making destruction particularly easy
C. holding exigent circumstances found because detailed affidavit alleged drug transactions were conducted near the bathroom for quick disposal of the evidence
D. holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where drugs cash and drug scales were found in defendants parlor and a gun was found in a secret compartment in defendants bathroom vanity
E. holding exigent circumstances existed because bathroom in hotel room was next to hallway door where the narcotics could have been particularly flushed and the suspected drug was crackcocaine which makes it not impossible that drugs were easily disposable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.