Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at 2048, 36 L.Ed.2d at 863. Thus, our concern when presented with a search-and-seizure claim in the context of contractual consent is that the consent promised under the contract be voluntary. Cf. id. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2047-48, 36 L.Ed.2d at 862-63. Generally, contract terms are considered to be consensual or voluntary for the same basic reason that courts normally enforce contracts. Conceptually, courts enforce contracts because they are a product of the free will of the parties who, within limits, are permitted to def 82, 738 P.2d 336, 341 (1987) (“A probationer, unlike a parolee, consents to the waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the opportunity to avoid service of a state prison term.”); People v. Mason, 5 Cal.3d 759, 97 Cal.Rptr. 302, 488 P.2d 630, 634 (1971) ; Allen v. State, 258 Ga. 424, 369 S.E.2d 909,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding condition of probation requiring probationer to consent at any time to a warrantless search by a law enforcement officer was unconstitutional
B. holding probationer may waive claims to privacy by agreeing in advance to permit searches at any time
C. holding that qatar did not by agreeing to arbitrate in france waive its sovereign immunity under  1605a1
D. holding probationer prospectively consents to searches by signing probation agreement
E. holding the defendant waived any claim of error by both failing to object at trial and affirmatively agreeing to a limited closure
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.