Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Szpunar next argues that Indiana Code section 23-2-1-3 is unconstitutionally vague because it does not specifically define the term security. He contends that application of the statute in this case is void for vagueness because it " 'fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," " and "because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions." Br. of Appellant at 21 (quoting United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954)). Initially we note that this claim is waived because it was not properly raised in the trial court. See Vaillancourt v. State, 695 N.E.2d 606, 610 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied (citing Regan v. State, 590 N.E.2d 640, 645-46 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) ). However, we choose to address this claim on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants failure to file a motion to sever waives objection to single trial on multiple charges
B. holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal
C. holding the failure to comply with the act does not bar defendant from raising a constitutional challenge to jury selection procedures
D. holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal
E. holding that the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.