Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a search is unreasonably intrusive: (1) whether the police have a “clear indication” that the desired evidence will be found, (2) the presence of exigent circumstances such as the imminent destruction of evidence or a risk to individual safety, and (3) whether the methods used to obtain the evidence was performed in a reasonable manner. Id.) see also Burnett v. Municipality of Anchorage, 806 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1986). Applying the framework set forth in Schmerber to the conduct of Officers Olsen and Vesely, we note that prior to forcing open defendant’s hand, the officers had been informed that the driver of the truck, in which defendant was a passenger, had been involved in a suspected drug transaction moments earlier. Upon approaching the truck, both officers ob .2d 519 (1995) . Therefore, we overrule defendant’s assignment
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants collective possession of plastic baggies beepers and scales  in conjunction with other evasive action  was sufficient evidence for jury to find conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine beyond reasonable doubt
B. holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under  856 where premises contained two white envelopes containing thirtytwo packs of crack cocaine equipment required for the manufacture and packaging of crack cocaine fortyone white envelopes containing particles of crack cocaine and crack cocaine stored in a laundry bag in the bathroom
C. holding that a federal agents expert testimony regarding the characteristics of crack cocaine and the methods of its distribution was admissible and highly relevant in helping the jury resolve the central issue of whether the defendant possessed crack cocaine with intent to distribute
D. holding police officers application of pressure to defendants throat causing him to spit out three plastic baggies containing crack cocaine was not unreasonably intrusive in light of the risk of losing the evidence and the potential health risk to the defendant
E. holding there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to distribute where the defendant dropped a plastic bag containing loose white rocks of cocaine and there was no other indicia of the defendants intent such as the drugs being packaged in smaller baggies
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.