Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
permissible under the sufficient sureties clause of the Iowa Constitution so long as the accused is permitted access to a surety in some form ” Id. at 583. Thus, the Briggs court seemed to recognize that cash and surety are separate options. The court explained that the defendant had presented no evidence to show that she was absolutely precluded from accessing a surety of some form. Instead, her allegations appear to center on the denial of access to a commercial bail bond. . . . [T]here is no absolute right to such access. Briggs has made no claim that she could not otherwise find a sufficient surety. Under other circumstances, we would, perhaps, remand this issue to the district court to determine whether Briggs’ access to a surety was completely precluded. Id 125, 835 N.E.2d 5, 18 ; Brooks, 604 N.W.2d at 354 (holding that an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an allcash bail violated ohios sufficient sureties clause
B. holding that retroactive application of ohios residency restriction statute violates the federal ex post facto clause
C. holding that stricti juris does not apply to compensated sureties but unambiguous contracts must not be extended by interpretation
D. holding allcash bail violates louisianas sufficient sureties clause
E. holding that an allcash bail violates vermonts sufficient sureties clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.