Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it reveals information not exposed to the public, we note preliminarily that the Government points to not a single actual example of visual surveillance that will be affected by our holding the use of the GPS in this case was a search. No doubt the reason is that practical considerations prevent visual surveillance from lasting very long. Continuous human surveillance for a week would require all the time and expense of several police officers, while comparable photographic surveillance would require a net of video cameras so dense and so widespread as to catch a person’s every movement, plus the manpower to piece the photographs together. Of course, as this case and some of the GPS cases in other courts illustrate, e.g., Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d at 447, 459, 882 N.Y.S.2d 357, 909 N.E.2d 1195 ; Jackson, 76 P.3d at 223 (holding use of GPS
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the use of a corset spring device was public although the use was by its nature not visible to the general public
B. holding warrantless gps tracking of vehicle for several days generating highly accurate record of the trackers whereabouts throughout its period of operation unjustified
C. holding in light of knotts that lower court did not abuse its discretion in cutting short testimony about use of gps device appellant did not cite knotts in his briefs or affirmatively argue use of device was a search
D. holding locomotive was not in use when it was parked on a repair track for inspection was in a blue flag area and had not yet been released for use following the inspection
E. holding use of gps device to track suspect for 65 days was search
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.