Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
information about their search precludes a finding of good faith on their part. And it is enough for us to make clear that Thomas in no way protects evidence obtained on the basis of a warrant which, like this one, was gotten not only illegally but in clear bad faith. CONCLUSION Because the district court’s findings, on the basis of which it correctly concluded that the search in this case constituted an illegal invasion of the defendant’s curtilage, were not clearly erroneous, and because the good faith exception, valuable though it is, does not apply on these facts, we affirm the decision of the district court. 1 . The government argues that in United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 95 108 S.Ct. 128, 98 L.Ed.2d 85 (1987); United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42, 46-47 (2d Cir.1987) . Consistent with these cases, we hold that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the issue of whether distress was so extreme that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it is a question of law
B. holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
C. holding that while the question of whether a reasonable person would believe his person was seized was normally a question of law that the district court was still entitled to deference because its determination in this case is inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the witnesses
D. holding that question of whether a state law tort claim was preempted by the lmra focused on whether evaluation of the tort claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract
E. recognizing that a person has been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.