Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
take much to establish probable cause”). Given everything that Raisbeck knew at the time of the arrest, it was reasonable for him to believe that Miller had sold 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (same). The phone calls that Detective Raisbeck had overheard and the surveillance of the restaurant provided even more corroboration. Although the detectives had not witnessed Miller do or say anything overtly incriminating on the day of the controlled buy, his actions were suspicious when considered in context. For example, Miller entered the restaurant with no apparent legitimate purpose only moments after Nicole had told him she “needed a hundred,” a phrase Raisbeck interpreted as a request to purchase $100 worth of crack cocaine. See United States v. Burnside, 588 F.3d 511, 518 (7th Cir. 2009) ; United States v. Funches, 327 F.3d 582, 586
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that while some conduct consistent with drug activity may not arouse suspicion in an average citizen an officers training and experience of how drug crimes are committed may provide the officer with a different perspective and should factor into the rubric when determining the reasonableness of the officers suspicion
B. holding that a police officers opinion that a defendant was most definitely engaged in drug dealing was not proper lay testimony because it was based on the officers specialized training in narcotics and extensive experience in methamphetamine cases
C. recognizing officers qualification to offer nonscientific expert opinion of intoxication based on training and experience
D. recognizing that officers are entitled to rely on training and experience in forming belief that drug transaction has occurred
E. holding experts experience knowledge and training is considered in determining reliability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.