Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Defendants have not shown that a reasonable officer could have believed that entry with intent to arrest would not violate clearly established law. Thus summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity would be inappropriate if the intent was to arrest or if facts as to intent are in dispute. A genuine dispute exists as to whether or not defendants ordered the storming of the house primarily for the purpose of arresting Quade. The fact that this dispute turns on an essentially subjective element (the officers’ purpose), while qualified immunity involves an inquiry into “objective reasonableness” does not mean that qualified immunity is any more or less available in this context than it would otherwise be. See Branch v. Tunnell, 937 F.2d 1382, 1385 (9th Cir.1991) (Branch I) ; Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1468-69 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under the fourth amendment the motive of the officer when stopping a vehicle for a minor traffic infraction whether subjective or objective is completely irrelevant
B. holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern
C. recognizing the tension between harlows emphasis on objective reasonableness and the subjective elements which are at times at issue in lawsuits against public officials including lawsuits based on alleged fourth amendment violations
D. recognizing private damage action for fourth amendment violations by federal officers
E. holding that claims that law enforcement officials used excessive force in making an arrest are properly analyzed under the fourth amendments objective reasonableness standard
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.