Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
inside of the containers. Because Coro’s failure to alert was inconclusive on the essential question of whether the package contained illegal narcotics and because the facts set forth in the search warrant affidavit otherwise were sufficient to establish probable cause, there was a substantial basis for the issuing court’s determination of probable cause. {34} Lastly, Defendant claims that, pursuant to Nyce, our inquiry must be “particularly exacting” because Defendant’s conduct was “equally consistent with legal activity.” See Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 14, 139 N.M. 647, 137 P.3d 587 (purchasing tincture of iodine and hydrogen peroxide at multiple stores in a hurried manner is equally consistent with lawful activity); State v. Anderson, 107 N.M. 165, 169, 754 P.2d 542, 546 (Ct.App. 1988) . We disagree. As we acknowledged in Nyce,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that merely traveling with drug dealers did not create probable cause at time of defendants arrest
B. holding that facts consistent with a drug courier profile are insufficient in themselves to establish probable cause because they are generally descriptive of hundreds of innocent persons traveling through new mexico on the interstate every day
C. holding that factors which by themselves were quite consistent with innocent travel collectively amounted to reasonable suspicion
D. holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case
E. holding that federal agents had probable cause to search defendants truck for drugs and contraband even though defendants conduct was consistent with innocent behavior
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.