Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
request that they leave. See People v. Medrano, 78 Cal.App.3d 198, 144 Cal.Rptr. 217 (Cal.App.1978), disapproved on other grounds, Vista Verde Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 29 Cal.3d 307, 172 Cal.Rptr. 720, 625 P.2d 263 (Cal.1981). a. Was Blair Field open to the public for purposes of section 602(n)? California Penal Code section 602(n) defines refusal to leave property occupied by another as a form of trespass. The statute “envisions an originally innocent entry, followed by an unlawful sojourn after refusal of requests to leave.” Medrano, 144 Cal.Rptr. at 227-28. The location of Blair Field within a public park supports the plaintiffs’ contention that the property was open to the public. See Denney v. Takaoka, 1993 WL 96602, *5, C-92-0818 FMS (N.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 1993) . The defendants contend, however, that Blair
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a universityowned land used as a park was open to the public for purposes of section 602n
B. holding section 625 only requires a showing that the conduct was done in a place that is open to the public or where the public has a right to be
C. holding that a municipal corporation was forbidden to construct an auditorium in a park as such construction would practically destroy the lot as a park and convert its use into a public square
D. holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees
E. holding that so long as seattle city light opened up the diablo dam to the public for recreation immunity applied despite a contractual provision compelling it to open land for public recreational purposes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.