Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
F.3d 1423, 1427-28 (7th Cir.1996) (noting several circuits have adopted sure course requirement), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 1434, 137 L.Ed.2d 542 (1997); United States v. Garcia, 882 F.2d 699, 702-03 (2d Cir.1989) (noting wide variety of courts have upheld anticipatory warrants when sure course requirement was met). As one court has explained: The sure course standard functions as a proxy for the actual presence of the contraband at the locus to be searched. It offers the magistrate a trustworthy assurance that the contraband, though not yet on the site, will almost certainly be located there at the time of the search, thus fulfilling the requirement of future probable cause. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d at 13; see also United States v. Hendriclcs, 743 F.2d 653, 654-55 (9th Cir.1984) . The "sure course” requirement is typically
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid when defendant was required to pick up suitcase containing contraband at airport and there was no assurance at time warrant was issued that defendant would take suitcase to his home
B. holding anticipatory warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because at time warrant was issued the contraband was not on a sure course to the place to be searched and there was no assurance defendant would take contraband to that place
C. holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home
D. holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because affidavit provided no assurance that defendant would take package to his home after collecting it at the airport despite fact that warrant contained condition that it was not to be executed until package arrived at defendants house
E. holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because contraband was picked up by defendant rather than being delivered to his home and affidavit failed to provide facts establishing a nexus between contraband and defendants home
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.