Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Reardon’s independent investigation yielded only minimal corroborative evidence relating to appellant, Officer Rear-don lacked probable cause to arrest appellant at the time he seized and searched the bag of socks. For these reasons, I would hold the trial court erroneously denied the motion to suppress, and I would reverse and dismiss appellant’s conviction. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 2 . The Commonwealth made this argument in the trial court and on brief on appeal. The fact that the trial court concluded appellant consented to the search and, thus, did not reach the probable cause issue does not prevent us from considering that issue on appeal where no further factual findings are necessary. See Driscoll v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 449, 451-52, 417 S.E.2d 312, 313 (1992) ; see also Hancock v. Commonwealth, 21 Va.App.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds
B. holding that the tipsy coachman doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons so long as there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record 
C. holding that appellate court may affirm ruling where trial court reached right result for wrong reason as long as alternate basis for affirmance was presented to trial court and no further factual findings are necessary
D. recognizing an appellate court may affirm a trial courts decision that reached the right result regardless of the trial courts reasoning
E. holding that it is axiomatic that this court can affirm a circuit court if the right result is reached even if for a different reason
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.