Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Court of Special Appeals’ decision in Evans is that Respondents’ constitutional rights were violated only when the police decided not to “arrest” them, and let them go. In this regard, we agree with the intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts: Under that principle, it cannot be said that [the defendant’s] constitutional rights were violated when he was first searched; if he had been arrested immediately afterwards ..., no question could now arise as to the constitutional validity of the search. It is thus apparent that the defendant is contending for a nonsense proposition: that his constitutional rights were violated at the moment when the police decided not to arrest him and instead let him go. Commonwealth v. Skea, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 470 N.E.2d 385, 393 (Mass.Ct.App.1984) . Accordingly, we hold that the failure of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the searehincidenttoalawfularrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest
B. holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
C. holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search
D. holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home
E. holding that reasoning which would justify the arrest by the search and at the same time justify the search by the arrest  will not do
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.