Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is subject to general rules of evidence but is "generally inadmissible"). Justice WALLACE, JR., concurring and dissenting. In my view, the Court is not required to address the difficult issue of whether the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard is a prerequisite to a consent search of a home. Defendant did not raise that issue at his suppression hearing or before the Appellate Division. We have frequently “expressed our reluctance to decide issues that were not addressed in the trial court or the Appellate Division.” Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 547, 897 A.2d 1018 (2006). Moreover, “[w]e have applied that principle even when a constitutional issue is presented.” Ibid. Although the majority opinion recognizes that the issue of the standard for a consent search 2d 793 (1990) ; State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 145-58, 519
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding state has burden of showing exception to prohibition against warrantless searches applies
B. holding tacit consent to search of person was insufficient to prove consent to search bags where bags were not in defendants actual possession defendant merely pointed out bags at officers request and officer never specifically asked for consent to search bags
C. holding that random searches of subway passengers carryon bags which include the visual inspection of the contents of such bags to be minimal
D. holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street
E. holding warrantless searches of garbage bags left on curb for collection invalid under state constitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.