Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
910 (Ky.1995)). More specifically, Kentucky courts have consistently held that police officers only owe a duty of care to specific individuals if there -is a “special relationship” between the officer and individual. City of Florence v. Chipman, 38 S.W.3d 387, 392 (Ky.2001); Ashby v. City of Louisville, 841 S.W.2d.184 (Ky.App.1992). However, Kentucky has yet to address the specific question presented here — whether a police officer owes a suspect the duty to investigate allegations of criminal activity with reasonable care. Although Kentucky law is seemingly silent on the specific issue presented herein, other jurisdictions have uniformly refused to recognize a tort of negligent investigation. See Turner v. Taylor, No. 7:09-cv-02858-JMC, 2011 WL 3794086, at *9 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2011) ; Fernander v. Bonis, 947 So.2d 584, 590
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that real estate agents owe their  clients a duty of loyalty
B. holding that the duty to investigate applied to a specific murder suspect
C. holding that a real estate agent does not owe a buyer a duty independent of the agency relationship with the seller
D. holding that brandname drug manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic drugs under oklahoma law
E. holding that officers owe a duty to the public to detect and investigate crime but owe no duty to individuals for negligent investigation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.