Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
See Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) (providing immunity for officers in tort unless they “acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.”); Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572, 584 (11th Cir. 1990) (“[T]he conduct is privileged and the actor is never liable where he does no more than insist upon his legal rights in a permissible way, even though the actor is well aware that such insistence is sure to cause emotional distress.”). Further, because Sada was not deprived of any constitutional or statutory rights, the City is not municipally liable for claims of negligence for any insufficient training under § 1983. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) . And lastly, because there was probable cause
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a superior can be held liable in his individual capacity if he participated in the deprivation of a plaintiffs constitutional rights
B. holding that if a police officer inflicted no constitutional injury on a suspect it is inconceivable that the police commissioners could be liable to the suspect
C. holding that the constitutional requirement for ripeness is injury in fact
D. holding officer liable for deprivation of constitutional rights despite argument that officer although present was not in control of the situation
E. holding that if a person has suffered no constitutional injury at the hands of the individual police officer the fact that the departmental regulations might have authorized a constitutional deprivation is immaterial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.