Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and hold that 25 U.S.C. § 410 continues to protect any money accruing from the lease of Indian trust land, even after it has been distributed to a Native American and placed in a personal bank account. 1. Jurisdiction ¶14 “Where a federal statute is silent on the question of jurisdiction, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.” Law Offices of Vincent Vitale, PC v. Tabbytite, 942 P.2d 1141, 1147 (Alaska 1997) (citing Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 506-08, 82 S. Ct. 519, 7 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1962)). Because 25 U.S.C. § 410 does not purport to impose exclusive federal jurisdiction, Washington courts have subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether 25 U.S.C. § 410 bars garnishment of the funds in the Harrisons’ bank accounts. See Vitale, 942 P.2d at 1147 . Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a nevada state court had no jurisdiction to entertain a civil action filed by a nonindian against an indian for events that occurred on indian land
B. holding that a nevada state court had no jurisdiction over indian claims to land allotments
C. holding that alaska state courts had jurisdiction to determine application of 25 usc  410 to proceeds of condemnation action on indian trust land
D. holding that the arrest of an indian on indian land was illegal because the state had no jurisdiction over the reservation to enforce its laws  including the execution of a search warrant  unless congress consented to the states jurisdiction
E. holding that county law enforcement officers lacked jurisdiction to arrest indian at ballpark located on indian trust land
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.