Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Use Act (“CUA”) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) do not change the probable cause analysis. Although “[pjrobable cause depends on all of the surrounding facts, including those that reveal a person’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver under” [the CUA or MMPA], People v. Mower, 28 Cal.4th 457, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 335, 49 P.3d 1067 (2002) (citations omitted), Carpenter has not alleged that Deputy Beuer possessed any information suggesting that Carpenter had such a status. Moreover, the police are not required to investigate the existence of affirmative defenses under the CUA or MMPA once probable cause has been established. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1032 (9th Cir.2003); People v. Fisher, 96 Cal.App.4th 1147, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838, 839, 841 (2002) ; People v. Wright, 40 Cal.4th 81, 85, 51
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding mmpa is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial
B. holding cua is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial
C. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense
D. holding that an affirmative defense is ordinarily lost if not timely raised
E. holding that laches is an affirmative defense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.