Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a continuation of the welfare check. Cf. Parsons, 825 So.2d at 409 (noting that nothing suggested deputy still believed appellant was intoxicated at the time he learned appellant was a sex offender); Danielewicz, 730 So.2d at 364 (noting that although officer testified he suspected appellant was intoxicated, he did not testify that he was concerned for appellant’s safety and he acknowledged that people sleep in their cars without criminal implication). Indeed, the fact that Dermio continued to be incoherent and “out of it” despite the deputy’s repeated attempts to communicate with him suggested he might have been in need of assistance, thereby permitting the deputy to enter Dermio’s car under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. See Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408 ; Vitale v. State, 946 So.2d 1220, 1221 (Fla.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing such an exception
B. recognizing that the community caretaking exception is distinct from the emergency aid or emergency assistance exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement
C. recognizing exception
D. recognizing emergency exception
E. holding that community caretaker exception applied but citing and relying on cases discussing the emergency aid exception
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.