Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
portion of the affidavit on tape.” We are satisfied that under Criminal Rule 37(a)(l)(ii) Officer Mowry’s off-the-record statement to Magistrate Johnson may not be considered as part of the affidavit in support of the search warrant. The affidavit consists of four handwritten paragraphs followed by the words “continued on tape,” and six paragraphs transcribed from the testimony which was then recorded. Neither the written nor the taped portions of Officer Mowry’s affidavit contains any express connection between White and 21-D Kennedy Camp. The “composite affidavit” cannot be supplemented by additional material which the officer later testifies that he also told the magistrate, but which does not appear of record. See United States v. Anderson, 453 F.2d 174, 177 (9th Cir.1971) . The state’s reliance on Nelson v. State, 628
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant
B. holding that all data necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of the affidavit
C. holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause
D. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
E. holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.