Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
... the officer performs a discretionary act.”). Although federal law does not determine whether an officer’s actions are discretionary for purposes of state law, nonetheless an examination of federal immunity law is instructive. Under federal law, the act in question must be discretionary as a prerequisite to an extension of qualified immunity. See Streetman v. Jordan, 918 F.2d 555, 556 (5th Cir.1990) (“Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from personal liability for discretionary acts which do not violate well-established law.”). Thus, those cases in which a federal court extends immunity to a police officer, necessarily determine that the disputed actions are discretionary. See, e.g., Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039-40, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) ; Swint v. City of Wadley, 5 F.3d 1435 (11th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity
B. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
C. holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search
D. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search
E. holding officers involved in investigatory raid entitled to immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.