Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (stating that “[t]his Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”). The recipient of a mailed item, on the other hand, has a reasonable expectation that the mail will not be detained by postal employees beyond the normal delivery date and time. In other words, an addressee’s possessory interest is in the timely delivery of a package, not in “having his package routed on a particular conveyor belt, sorted in a particular area, or stored in any particular sorting bin for a particular amount of time.” United States v. Demoss, 279 F.3d 632, 639 (8th Cir.2002) (Hansen J., concurring). See also England, 971 F.2d at 420-21 ; United States v. Vasquez, 213 F.3d 425, 426
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an initially reasonable seizure can become an unreasonable seizure that violates the fourth amendment when officers refuse to return seized property
B. holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment
C. holding that a seizure occurs when there is a significant interference with a persons possessory or ownership interest in property
D. holding that there was no fourth amendment seizure where delivery of package was not delayed because it is the extent of the interference with the defendants possessory interest in the property that determines whether a seizure has occurred
E. holding that in the fourth amendment context a seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individuals possessory interests in that property
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.