Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 39, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1 (requiring particularized showing of exigent circumstances for warrantless search of vehicle under N.M. Const, art. II, § 10); Campos v. State, 117 N.M. 155, 158-59, 870 P.2d 117, 120-21 (1994) (declining to adopt federal rule allowing warrantless arrest without exigent circumstances); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 445-47, 863 P.2d 1052, 1066-68 (1993) (rejecting good faith rationale under Fourth Amendment and the federal rationale for the exclusionary rule based on deterring police misconduct); State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 217, 784 P.2d 30, 36 (1989) (rejecting Fourth Amendment rationale for the "totality of circumstances” test to establish probable cause); State v. Snyder, 1998-NMCA-166, VH 18-24, 126 N.M. 168, 967 P.2d 843 . 3 . We do not address the breadth of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that exclusionary rule does not extend to forbid the use in federal civil tax proceeding of evidence illegally seized by state criminal law enforcement agent
B. holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule
C. holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials
D. holding that me const art 1  5 does not require the state to prove probable cause for a search beyond a reasonable doubt
E. holding that nm const art ii  10 exclusionary rule applied to use of evidence in state court criminal proceeding when that evidence resulted from warrantless search by federal border patrol agents at checkpoint in new mexico
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.