Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Beathard, 767 S.W.2d at 428; Losada v. S mant, Baccus, was indisputably acting covertly on behalf of law enforcement. He was cooperating in the hopes of completing enough “case credits” to have his charges dismissed. Accordingly, to determine the sufficiency of the corroboration of the informant, we must eliminate all of his testimony and determine whether there is other evidence that tends to connect Appellant to the offense of possession with intent to deliver. In Cantelon, an officer testified that the informant met the defendant at an agreed upon time and place, that he searched the informant, and that he watched as the informant, carrying a specific amount of cash and an audio recorder, met with the defendant and then returned without the cash, carryi Amarillo 2004, pet. ref'd) ; Tave v. State, No. 2-02-449-CR, 2004 WL
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an officers reasonable belief that he had witnessed a handtohand drug transaction helped provide a reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of defendants vehicle
B. holding testimony of officer and narcotics investigator who both witnessed drug transaction coupled with audio recording of transaction constituted sufficient corroboration
C. holding that a fiduciary who receives consideration in connection with a transaction involving plan assets violated section 406b and a nonfiduciary who facilitated that transaction could be liable
D. holding that probable cause existed when trained narcotics officers observed what they believed to be a drug transaction
E. recognizing step transaction doctrine whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.