Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
notion that charter counties possess wide authority under Missouri Constitution Article VI, Section 18(c), to regulate municipal functions as they see fit — even in contravention of state statutes concerning the same powers. See, e.g., Casper v. Hetlage, 359 S.W.2d 781 (Mo.1962). So if section 260.247 in fact regulates a “municipal function,” serving in effect as a default regulation for political subdivisions which do not have home rule, the County is constitutionally free to exercise legislative power over that function; but if section 260.247 is “within the province of general legislation involving the public policy of the state as a whole,” then the County is bound by it regardless of its charter status. See State ex rel. St. Louis County v. Edwards, 589 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Mo.1979) . To resolve this question, the trial court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that juvenile adjudications may not be used for impeachment purposes because the disposition of a juvenile does not constitute a criminal conviction
B. holding that although the juvenile restitution statute does not expressly require the juvenile court to determine whether the juvenile has the ability to pay the restitution ordered as a condition of probation the policies underlying the adult restitutions command that a trial court make such an inquiry applies with equal force to juvenile courts
C. holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles
D. holding that jeopardy attaches in juvenile adjudication that determines whether juvenile violated criminal law
E. holding that the juvenile codes comprehensive control of juvenile facilities for the purpose of providing care protection and discipline of children in the juvenile facility could not be overridden by st louis countys exercise of control over juvenile facility personnel citing flower valley shopping center v st louis county 528 sw2d 749 754 mo banc 1975 state ex rel spink v kemp 365 mo 368 283 sw2d 502 514 1955
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.