Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
devoid of any meaningful difference; for the heart of our holding in Blow was a recognition of the “deeply-rooted legal and societal principle that the coveted privacy of the home should be especially protected.” Blow, 157 Vt. at 518, 602 A.2d at 555. This heightened expectation of privacy rendered it objectively reasonable to expect that conversations in the privacy of one’s home would not be surreptitiously invaded by warrantless transmission or recording. “[W]arrantless electronic participant monitoring conducted in a home,” we held, “offends the core values of Article 11. tution to hold that “the expectation that one’s conversations will not be secretly recorded or broadcast should be recognized as reasonable”); see also Commonwealth v. Brian, 652 A.2d 287, 289 (Pa. 1994) . Both cases recognized the risk that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that while an individual has a right to possess obscene material in the privacy of his home there is no corresponding privacy right to purchase such material
B. holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business
C. holding that an individual can reasonably expect that his right to privacy will not be violated in his home through the use of any electronic surveillance
D. holding that an individual can waive any process to which he or she has a right
E. holding that an individual using prescription drugs has a right to expect that such information will customarily remain private
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.