Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
informant’s information was corroborated by his personal observations and corroborated by the personal observations of officers Tate and Deer. The controlled buy was corroborated by the participation and observation of officers Tate and Deer: Sergeant Deer searched the informant and his vehicle for any illegal contraband or monies; the informant was given money to make the controlled buy; Tate and Deer followed the informant to a location near Morgan’s residence; and, Tate and Deer observed the informant walk into the residence, stay approximately two minutes, and return with drugs. Sergeant Deer’s account of the drug buy, alone, was sufficient to establish probable cause to search Morgan’s home for drugs and other contraband. See Langford v. State, 332 Ark. 54, 962 S.W.2d 358 (1998) . We do not find the fact that the officers did
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an officers account of a controlled buy made by an informant was by itself sufficient to es tablish probable cause for issuance of a search warrant
B. holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant
C. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
D. holding that a controlled buy at a particular home provided probable cause for the search of that residence
E. holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.