Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of Trooper Weilminster, handcuffed her behind her back. (PI. Aff. ¶ 11; PI. Dep. 108:11-113:10.) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, whether Trooper Nolan even had probable cause to arrest her is questionable, and there is no indication that she was trying to resist arrest. Plaintiff visited the hospital following her departure from the police barracks, and complained of injuries including bruised wrists. (PL Dep. 196:12-197:10, 201:13-19.) She also testified that she informed the hospital staff that she had sustained an injury to hear head and knees. (Pl. Dep. 194:6-197:10.) A reasonable jury could find that no force was warranted, and that forcibly removing Plaintiff from her car and handcuffing her was excessive force. See, e.g., Robison, 821 F.2d at 923-24 ; Lemmo v. City of New York, No. 08-CV-2641,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force
B. holding that forcibly removing nonviolent plaintiff from her car could be excessive force
C. recognizing pretrial detainees constitutional right to be from excessive force
D. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim
E. holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.