Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
198 N.J.Super. 214, 217, 486 A.2d 932 (App.Div.1985)); see also Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 390, 25 A.3d 240; (2011); In re Attorney Gen.’s “Directive on Exit Polling: Media & Non-Partisan Pub. Interest Groups ”, 200 N.J. 283, 297-98, 981 A.2d 64 (2009); DKM Residential Props. Corp. v. Twp. of Montgomery, 182 N.J. 296, 307, 865 A.2d 649 (2005). The Court’s construction of N.J.S.A 39:4— 88(b) gives meaning to all of the! statute’s language, and thereby effects the intent of the Legislature. Moreover, if N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b) precludes only unsafe lane changes, a driver would not violate the statute even by allowing a vehicle to straddle two lanes or swerve back and forth over the lines defining traffic lanes, unless that conduct created a safety issue. See State v. Lewis, 185 N.J p.1998) ; Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424, 769 A.2d 879,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures
B. holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required
C. holding that one claim was not preempted because it did not allege the violation of duties created by any welfare plan but a violation of duties as a past employer
D. holding that the language of the statute clearly requires  proof of a causal connection between the drivers intoxication and the death of another person
E. holding that violation of fl stat ann  316089a requires evidence that the drivers conduct created a reasonable safety concern
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.