Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
against the unknown aggressor, particularly if they resemble highwaymen in ski masks. Second, permitting the police to attempt an unannounced forcible entry subverts the interest in protecting private property. Finally, attempting entry without warning precludes the officers’ ability to recognize possible mistakes in identity or location of the suspect or the place to be searched. Therefore, our previous analysis in Fike no longer serves as the basis for assessing attempted forcible entries under the knock-and-announce rule. Rather, the reasonableness test outlined by the Supreme Court in Richards applies with equal force to attempts at forcible entry as it does to the actual breaking and entering of a person’s home. See also United States v. Gable, 401 F.2d 765, 766 (3rd Cir.1968) ; United States v. McCloud, 127 F.3d 1284, 1289
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the insertion of a key into the door of a car to see if it fit constituted the beginning of a search because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy
B. holding that arrest by the back door of defendants house was unlawful
C. holding that mere insertion of key was not a search or at least not an unreasonable search protected by the fourth amendment
D. holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house
E. holding that insertion of a crowbar into the door of a suspects house by officers before they announced their presence constitutes an unreasonable search
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.