Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300 (87 SC 1056, 18 LE2d 62) (1967) (informant had provided information to affiant 15 or 16 times within the past year, resulting in numerous arrests and convictions); Clyatt v. State, 126 Ga. App. 779 (1), 781 (192 SE2d 417) (1972) ("within the past 90 days the informant had furnished information which resulted in the arrest of one person and the recovery of various illegal drugs”); Tomblin v. State, 128 Ga. App. 823 (1) (198 SE2d 366) (1973) (informant used "numerous times” in past and personally known to affiant for several years). Otherwise the police would be enabled to obtain search warrants to enter private homes on the basis of assertions so vague and conclusory that they could never be challenged. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, — U. S. — (57 LE2d 667) (1978) . In summary, we find that the language used in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a warrant was needed to perform an administrative search upon private property
B. holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause
C. holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant
D. holding that a defendant has a right to challenge the factual assertions in a search warrant upon a preliminary showing that they are untrue
E. holding that the fourth amendment requires that a defendant be allowed an opportunity to challenge the veracity of an affidavit supporting a search warrant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.