Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
desire to reunite with his child. Second, their interaction with Kish gave no reason to doubt his credibility. Kish gave Defendants a detailed account of the alleged plan to accomplish Steiner’s suicide, along with a diagram indicating where he had personally observed the medications. Kish repeated his allegations under oath before the Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor, Stevens, and his testimony remained consistent. Accordingly, Defendants had reasonable grounds to believe they would find medications at Re-gets’s home and Steiner’s hotel room. Re-gets has failed to cite any authority that Defendants were required to more thoroughly investigate Kish and his claims before seeking the issuance of the search warrants. See, e.g., United States v. Kini-son, 710 F.3d 678, 682 (6th Cir.2013) . Regets also argues that Kish’s statement
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability
B. holding that a known informants statement can support probable cause even though the affidavit fails to provide any additional basis for the known informants credibility
C. holding that probable cause may be gleaned from the hearsay statements of informants
D. holding that the subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause
E. holding that probable cause can be established on the basis of unverified hearsay fleeting observations or by tips received by unnamed reliable informants
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.