Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(7 Otto) 381, 385, 24 L.Ed. 1104 (1878). Keying on this distinction in the nature of the proceeding, Griffin argues that although forfeiture actions “may be civil in form, [they] are in their nature criminal.” One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 697, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 1249, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965) (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 383, 6 5. Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886)). Consequently, Griffin explains, even if section 881 is a civil remedy, its effect is quasi-criminal and proceedings brought pursuant to the section are therefore subject to the ex post facto clause. It is true that forfeiture statutes like section 881 have been considered criminal for certain purposes. See One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965) ; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding sbm is not a violation of the defendants fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
B. holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court
C. holding that the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment so that evidence seized in violation of the constitution could no longer be used in state courts
D. holding that forfeiture statute is subject to the fourth amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures
E. holding that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendments proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.