Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
so long as probable cause existed for the one offense). The fact that the offense was a misdemeanor is also immaterial to our Fourth Amendment analysis. See United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418, 421-24, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (a police officer is permitted to arrest without a warrant if a misdemeanor is committed in the officer’s presence). Thus, the officers in this case had, at least, arguable probable cause to conclude that Smithson had violated the city’s sound ordinance. Accordingly, we conclude that Brown, Westemeyer, McBride, and Richardson are entitled to qualified immunity on appellees’ Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. See Johnson v. Schneiderheinz, 102 F.3d 340 (8th Cir.1996); see also Hannah v. City of Overland, 795 F.2d 1385, 1389 (8th Cir.1986) . B. First Amendment To be successful on his
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury
B. holding that arrest made with probable cause and without excessive force does not give rise to iied claim
C. recognizing that warrantless arrests with probable cause do not give rise to  1983 claims
D. recognizing the defense of good faith and probable cause in  1983 case involving unconstitutional warrantless arrest
E. holding  1983 action lies for warrantless arrest without probable cause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.