Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Curiously, however, the Currys do not direct us to either video or photographic evidence in the record of Andrew and Grace’s recordings of their comings and goings. In any event, it is undisputed le an uninvited invasion of the inside of plaintiffs home could constitute a claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion, harassment of plaintiff in a restaurant or on the public street outside his home could not). The surveillance cameras did not intrude into the Currys’ private physical space. As for the Currys’ claim that a police officer came to their house to investigate Andrew and Grace’s report of vandalism, they have neither alleged nor proven that the officer did not have a right to be there, especially since probable cause was found for Jeffery’s arrest. See Cullison, 570 N.E.2d at 31 . Based on the undisputed facts, the trial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff must demonstrate that there was an intrusion upon his or her physical solitude or seclusion such as by conducting an illegal search
B. holding that the plaintiff further must demonstrate that the conspiracy was motivated by a class based animus such as race
C. holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change
D. holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel
E. holding that plaintiff must present such evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.