Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
[¶ 19] When potential destruction of evidence is the alleged exigent circumstance, officers must provide some particularized basis for their suspicion. See Herrick I, 1997 ND 155, ¶ 23, 567 N.W.2d 336 (stating no evidence was presented, other than the possible existence of drugs and an explained belief defendant would dispose of evidence if forewarned); cf. State v. Jones, 358 N.J.Super. 420, 818 A.2d 392 (2003) (observing “[pjolice must articulate some reason that the destruction of evidence is more than a hypothetical possibility”). In Richards, the United States Supreme Court held, “[when] police could know the drugs being searched for were of a type or in a location that made them impossible to destroy quickly ... asserted governmental interest in pr , 629 N.W.2d 613, 623 (2001) ; United States v. Johnson, 267 F.3d 498, 501
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the threat of imminent destruction of evidence of criminal activity created an exigent circumstance
B. holding that initial consent was not withdrawn where the undercover officer momentarily stepped out to obtain help from other officers located in the room across the hall in making the arrest
C. holding exigent circumstances existed because bathroom in hotel room was next to hallway door where the narcotics could have been particularly flushed and the suspected drug was crackcocaine which makes it not impossible that drugs were easily disposable
D. holding exigent circumstances found because detailed affidavit alleged drug transactions were conducted near the bathroom for quick disposal of the evidence
E. holding exigent circumstances demonstrated because officers knew defendant stored drugs in room across from the bathroom making destruction particularly easy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.