Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
States v. Swart, 679 F.2d 698 (7th Cir.1982), therefore, does not assist Sandoval-Vasquez. There, we ruled that officers’ entry into a business they knew was closed violated the Fourth Amendment. In this case, however, the officers entered an open business. Sandoval-Vasquez also attempts to distinguish Tolar on the basis that the officers here entered the premises with their weapons drawn, yelling that they were police officers and ordering the occupants against a wall. The officers’ entry in Tolar, in contrast, was peaceful. Sandoval-Vasquez thus maintains that in addition to entering the business shortly before it closed, the officers’ manner of entry into his business rendered the entry unlawful. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995) . We agree with the district court that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the common law knockandannounce principle forms a part of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry
B. holding that commonlaw knock and announce principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the fourth amendment
C. holding common law knockandannounce principle forms part of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry
D. holding that knockandannounce principle is an element of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry because we have little doubt that the framers of the fourth amendment thought that the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure
E. holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.