Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
contains relevant evidence. But in others, including Belton and Thornton, the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1719 (citation omitted). In both Belton and Thornton, the vehicle occupants were arrested for possession of narcotics. See Belton, 453 U.S. at 456, 101 S.Ct. 2860; Thornton, 541 U.S. at 618, 124 S.Ct. 2127. Had Vinton been arrested merely for speeding or driving with excessively tinted windows, Gant’s evidentiary rationale obviously would not have authorized a subsequent search because under the circumstances it would have been very unlikely that evidence relevant to either of those traffic offenses would be found inside his car. See Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1719 . But instead, Vinton was arrested for the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law
B. holding an officer could not ask for consent to search a cars passenger compartment for an additional vin when the vin on the dashboard was visible from outside the car
C. holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not
D. holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle
E. holding that an evidentiary basis for the search was  lacking  because gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license an offense for which police could not expect to find evidence in the passenger compartment of his car
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.