Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, ask to examine the individual’s identification, and request consent to search his or her luggage-as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (citations omitted). In a nutshell, the rationale behind this general rule is “[t]he Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures; it does not proscribe voluntary cooperation.” Id. at 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382. However, the Supreme Court has further stated, “When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no Cir.1994) . But cf. United States v. Hawthorne, 982 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court must examine totality of circumstances to determine whether substantial evidence supports issuance of search warrant
B. holding that persons knowledge of his right to refuse a consent to search is a factor but not a necessary prerequisite to demonstrating a voluntary consent
C. holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances
D. holding threat to obtain a search warrant if individual does not consent to a search is just one factor in deciding whether the totality of the circumstances supports a voluntary consent finding
E. recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.