Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
ports. In addition, Special Agent Itnyre saw miscellaneous papers next to the coffee table that also displayed prostitution related information much like the open notebook. (See Hr’g, Gov. Ex. 15. (“escort pandora’s” and “outcall pearl city lhr@300”).) Moreover, Special Agent Itnyre knew that Defendant had identified the hotel room as the room in which he had been staying with Nishimura, and that Nishimura assisted Defendant in his prostitution business. Although only y United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 771 (9th Cir.2006). Further, the mere opening of the notebooks showed information identical to that of the first notebook and provided substantial probable cause to believe that they were “trick books” associated with criminal activity. See Issacs, 708 F.2d at 1369-70 . Finally, fourth, the agents had a lawful
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence was admissible under the good faith exception where the affidavit contained a detailed description of the nature of the offense the premises to be searched the items for which they were searching and the transaction which led the informant to believe that the drugs would be in this apartment
B. recognizing the propriety of a brief perusal of the books if items validly being searched for might reasonably be located within the book
C. recognizing that the nexus between the place to be searched and the items to be seized may be established by the nature of the item and the normal inferences of where one would likely keep such evidence internal quotation marks omitted
D. recognizing that missing data were located in a laboratory within the constructive control of the state
E. holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.