Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the .active pursuit requirement is especially important as to not eviscerate the exclusionary rule); United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 320 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that the court “has never applied the inevitable discovery exception so as to excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant where the police had probable cause but simply did not attempt to obtain a search warrant,” because to hold otherwise “would completely obviate the warrant requirement”) (citing United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1280 n. 7 (9th Cir.1986)); United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 746 (1st Cir.1986) (recognizing that active pursuit may be necessary in certain situations to satisfy the test of inevitability and independence); United States v. Cherry, 759 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir.1985) . However, even the federal courts that would
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the prosecution must establish a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means that the leads making the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police prior to the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing the alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct
B. holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial
C. holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred
D. holding that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine as that doctrine requires the state to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the police ultimately would have discovered the evidence independently of the improper police conduct by means of normal investigative measures that inevitably would have been set in motion as a matter of routine police procedure  quoting craig v state 510 so2d 857 863 fla1987
E. holding that upon remand if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable the trial court must review that new evidence as well as brady claims that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.