Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the contents of the conversation took place was to look for evidence. To do that, the police should have had a warrant. There was no exigency, the tape was not about to leave their possession. Furthermore, Deputy Roed's inspection of the printout's contents constituted a search regardless of whether she was lawfully in possession of the printout. Legal possession of an article does not endow law enforcement officials with any concomitant authority to also search the contents of the article. See, e.g., Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 654 (1980) (Stevens, J. concurring), (stating that, "[t]he fact that FBI agents were lawfully in possession of the boxes of film did not give them authority to search their contents."); United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 959-60 (11th Cir. 1990) . Robert Rewolinski had a legitimate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a promise by fbi agents that defendant would serve no time on state charges if he cooperated in the federal investigation was unauthorized
B. holding that a foia request sent to fbi headquarters and that made no reference to new york did not obligate the fbi to search records held in its new york field office
C. holding that the plaintiffs ftca claims failed because the fbi agents were privileged to use reasonable force under texas law
D. holding that the contents of a notebook were not protected speech based in part on the fact that appellant made no effort to communicate the contents of the notebook to the public
E. holding that an fbi agents investigation of the written contents of a notebook that was lawfully in the possession of the fbi constituted a search that violated the defendants fourth amendment rights
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.