Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and Brown’s arrest.”). The problem is that Williams was not seen or heard from until fourteen months after the crime when he was arrested in Georgia. While Deputy Lucius patrolled Samspon Park looking for Williams, he did not offer any details supporting his efforts. There was no information that Williams was not at his usual haunts or had not reported for work. And there was no testimony that the police inquired of Williams’ -family and friends beyond the day after the crime. While Detective Hollis testified that he attempted to locate Williams’ friends, family members, and girlfriends, he did not give a time line or indicate that, he actually came into contact with any of these people beyond the day after the crime. Cf. Diaz-Gonzalez v. State, 932 So.2d 528, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) . This lack of evidence also supports the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a reasonable juror could infer defendant knew of the officers investigation for a crime that occurred a few months before his arrest because the investigating officer went to the residence of the defendants exwife made ten separate visits to the defendants business during which he informed those present that he wanted to talk to the defendant about something that happened on the date of the crime and gave this information to the defendants alibi witness
B. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene
C. holding that no valid arrest had taken place before the search of the defendants person was conducted even though prior to that point a police officer had approached the defendant displayed his badge informed the defendant of his suspicions that the defendants luggage contained drug contraband informed the defendant of his constitutional rights and detained the defendant for twenty minutes after he had accompanied the officers to a police office located in the airport
D. holding that officers failure to talk to asserted alibi witnesses did not constitute a violation of the defendants constitutional rights
E. holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.