Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by double yellow lines on Salisbury Street. Although the two signs alerted motorists that there was a “K-9 CHECK POINT AHEAD,” in fact, there was no K-9 officer at the checkpoint. A K-9 officer was present and available to assist, however, in a vehicle parked near the narcotics officers who were observing the activities from Pelican Drive. The narcotics officers stationed on Pelican Drive observed a burgundy Pontiac Grand Am approach the checkpoint signs and then execute an illegal u-turn across the grass median after passing the first checkpoint sign but before reaching the checkpoint itself. Upon observing that conduct, the narcotics officers pursued the Grand Am and executed a stop. Three narcotics officers approached the stopped car. Narcotics officers Almeida and K Cir.1994) . Consequently, Scott Brooks’s commission of a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983
B. holding that where an individual voluntarily goes to the police station to discuss the commission of a crime that person has not been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment
C. recognizing that a person has been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
D. holding that unless the law enforcement officers show of authority succeeds in restraining a person the person has not been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment
E. holding that a dog that was destroyed by the police department was obviously  seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.