Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
most like a prison, Judge Gleeson applied the Covino/Tumer standard. See id. This was correct. The Plaintiff was confined for an extended period of time in a prison-like environment, and it appears that he was charged with felonies, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1028. In the environment where the Plaintiff was held, the lesser reasonable suspicion standard would jeopardize prison officials’ ability to maintain security. As Judge Gleeson recognized, even if the precise standard governing intrusive searches of the Plaintiff at the MDC might not have been clearly established in 2001, it was clearly established that even the standard most favorable to prison officials required that strip and body-cavity searches be rationally related to legitimate government purposes. Cf. Hodges, 712 F.2d at 35 . The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a plaintiff stated a fourth amendment claim where consecutive bodycavity searches were unnecessary
B. holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment
C. holding that bodycavity searches of prisoners are not unreasonable
D. holding that fourth amendment applicable in administrative searches for safety inspections
E. holding that consensual suspicionless searches of government employees personal belongings in the workplace were searches even though refusal to consent carried no criminal penalty and the searches were not for law enforcement purposes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.