Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 3156(a)(4)(B) which has a definition similar to that in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)). On its face, the plain language of 16(b) encompasses Tex. Penal Code § 30.04, which proscribes breaking into, or entering, a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft or felony. Breaking into a vehicle, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the property of another. See 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Alfaro-Gramajo’s argument that the Texas courts have construed the statute too broadly for it to be considered a crime of violence is unpersuasive. The cases cited by Alfaro-Gramajo show that Texas courts have interpreted the statute within the plain meaning of its terms. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 919 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Tex.Ct. App.1996) . However, to qualify under § 16(b), the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the automobile exception applied to a car that had broken down and was to be repaired during the night and operable the next morning because the car had not lost its inherent mobility
B. holding a car was broken into or entered when defendant reached in through the open window of a car
C. holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause
D. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
E. holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.