Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the defendants here, but rather it applies through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). 4 . For example, Fox's brief opposing summary judgment in the district court stated that "Plaintiff has never based his [42 U.S.C. § 1983] claim on the original, August 17, 1993, seizure of his license.” A 21, 1991 WL 268661, *3 (N.D.Ill.Dec.4, 1991) (rejecting such a Fourth Amendment claim), aff'd without reaching this issue, 980 F.2d 733, 1992 WL 348883 (7th Cir.1992) (unpublished order). In addition, the district court found that two unpublished opinions of this circuit suggest that claims similar to the one made by Fox here are cognizable under the Fourth Amendment. See Bush v. Banks, Nos. 95-6370, 96-5015, 1996 WL 668551 (6th Cir.1996) ; Eaton v. Farmer, No. 93-6305, 1994 WL 151336
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an initially reasonable seizure can become an unreasonable seizure that violates the fourth amendment when officers refuse to return seized property
B. holding seizure unreasonable due to length of detention of property
C. holding that allegations that a seized vehicle was improperly retained and damaged state claims of a denial of due process and right to be free from unreasonable seizure
D. holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution
E. holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.