Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find for that party. A non-moving party cannot withstand summary judgment, however, by introduction of a “mere scintilla” of evidence in its favor. See Ciminillo, 434 F.3d at 464. Before this court, the plaintiff first argues that the finding of probable cause by the state judge at the preliminary-examination stage of the criminal proceedings should not affect the federal courts’ decisions regarding the merits of his claims of wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution. He does so even though each of those later claims contains, as an element, the lack of probable cause to pursue the particular action. See, e.g., Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 262 (6th Cir.1988) (wrongful arrest) ; Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308 (6th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that civil commitment for any purpose constitutes significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection
B. holding under the fourth amendment that a judicial determination of probable cause is a prerequisite to any extended restraint on the liberty of an adult accused of crime
C. holding that pretrial detention resulting from legal process unsupported by probable cause violates the fourth amendment
D. holding that the fourth amendment requires a finding of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty
E. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.