Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have had a track record of reliability, their tips corroborated the first informant’s tip and to some extent each other’s tips, which also “render[s] their information enough to support a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir.1998). In like fashion, in United States v. Le, 173 F.3d 1258, 1266 (10th Cir.1999), a case where the sufficiency of an affidavit upon which a search warrant was challenged, we said: The affidavit contained information provided by two different informants whose stories were remarkably consistent. “[CJonsistency between the reports of two independent informants helps to validate both accounts.” United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 566 (1st Cir.1996); see also United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir.1998) ; United States v. Pritchard, 745 F.2d 1112,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that noncompliance with mandatory requirement of search warrant statute designed to ensure that warrants are issued upon reliable information required that information provided by informants be ignored in determining probable cause
B. holding that a credibility determination based on among other things a tendency to exaggerate was supported by substantial evidence
C. holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime
D. holding that the magistrates finding of probable cause was supported by among other things the reciprocally corroborative consistency in the information provided by two separate informants
E. holding that in order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under  1983 a plaintiff must establish among other things the absence of probable cause for the initiation of the proceedings against her
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.