Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
search Baldón, either predicated on individual suspicion, background information particular to Baldón that would have been known to the parole officer, or the general mission of parole. Thus, the only issue we address on appeal is whether a parole agreement containing a consent-to-search clause renders suspicionless and warrant-less searches of parolees reasonable under the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution. Additionally, we only analyze the consent issue in this case on state constitutional law grounds. The United States Supreme Court has not yet directly weighed in on the issue to direct an outcome under the Fourth Amendment or to aid us in our resolution under our state constitution. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 852 n. 3, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 2199 n. pp.1976) . On the other hand, only a handful of courts
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given
B. holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer
C. holding probationers acceptance of search provision of parole agreement did not constitute freely and voluntarily given consent
D. holding released offenders do not voluntarily consent to all conditions of parole
E. holding search provision in probation order constitute a reasonable and necessary element of the courts regulation of probationers which did not require the defendants consent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.