Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2084, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). We are aware of no case that would preclude a reasonable officer from believing there was probable cause to detain a person who alluded to committing suicide. Cf. Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 922 (9th Cir.2009) (granting qualified immunity where plaintiffs did not cite “a single case squarely holding that an officer cannot rely” on a particular victim’s statements in making an arrest); F.E. Trotter v. Watkins, 869 F.2d 1312, 1316 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that a violation could not be clearly established where no case had held so previously); see also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1220 (9th Cir.2007) . While the dissent discounts Hall’s statement
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had
B. holding officer did not violate fourth amendment by taking defendant into custody under  5150 where it was reasonable to infer from facts known to detaining officer that plaintiff was at least temporarily disordered and as a result of mental disorder was a danger to herself
C. holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself
D. holding that a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to detain a person under section 5150 after she alluded to committing suicide despite her protest that the officer should have known the allusion was merely hyperbole
E. holding arrest was valid because there was probable cause of cdw even though officer incorrectly believed at the time that he had probable cause of ppw
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.