Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
challenge the results by showing errors in the machine or in the operator, or extraneous conditions affecting the results. Id. at 354, 857 P.2d at 406. Our decision in Guthrie did not undermine this rationale. See Guthrie, 202 Ariz. at 275, 43 P.3d at 603. ¶ 14 In any event, the practical difficulty that Defendant has identified in obtaining an independent breath sample is not sufficient to create a due process violation. A DUI suspect has a due process right to gather exculpatory evidence. See Smith v. Coda, 114 Ariz. 510, 512-13, 562 P.2d 390, 392-93 (App.1977). Due process, however, requires only that a defendant be given a “reasonable opportunity” to obtain exculpatory evidence. Van Herreweghe v. Burke ex rel. County of La Paz, 201 Ariz. 387, 390, ¶ 11, 36 P.3d 65, 68 (App.2001) . “Police officers are not required to take the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that release unambiguously released defendants from negligence liability even though the release did not include the word negligence because there was no other rational purpose for which the exculpatory language could have been intended
B. holding that constitutional precedent does not require that a convicted defendant be warned of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent prior to submitting to a routine authorized presentence interview
C. holding that dui defendants constitutional and statutory right to a reasonable opportunity to obtain exculpatory evidence does not require his immediate release from jail
D. holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury
E. holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.