Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
doctrine, holds that the Due Process Clause generally does not require pre-deprivation process if the deprivation results from the random and unauthorized act of a state officer. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981). A State cannot possibly ensure hearings before its officers act randomly and without authority, and “the State cannot be required constitutionally to do the impossible by providing predeprivation process.” Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 129, 110 S.Ct. 975. Accordingly, all the process the victim of such a deprivation is due is' an effective post-deprivation state law tort remedy against the offending officer. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 534-35, 104 S.Ct. 3194 . Justice' Kennedy’s concurrence in Albright v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that postdeprivation tort remedy constitutes all the process that is due for unauthorized negligent and intentional torts by state officials
B. holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional
C. holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy
D. holding that a federal due process malicious prosecution claim against an indiana police officer could proceed because indiana law did not provide an adequate postdeprivation tort law remedy
E. holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.