Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
We addressed a similar circumstance in Frazier v. Simmons, 254 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2001). In Frazier, a crime-scene investigator challenged the district court’s conclusion that his job’s essential functions included being able to run, carry a firearm, and physically restrain offenders. Frazier, 254 F.3d at 1250-51. We agreed with the district court that these were essential functions, regardless of how infrequently a crime-scene investigator may have to do them. We explained that even “assuming that an investigator may be required to perform these physical activities infrequently, the potential for physical confrontation with a suspect exists any time [the plaintiff] conducts a crime scene investigation.” Id. at 1260; see Martin v. Kansas, 190 F.3d 1120, 1132 (10th Cir. 1999) , overruled on other grounds by Bd. of Trustees
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the potentially dire consequences of not requiring a corrections officer to be able to run restrain violent offenders or respond to emergencies
B. holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond  may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case
C. holding that unable to respond constitutes no response
D. holding that the secretary of corrections is not a law enforcement officer under the tca
E. holding that legitimate law enforcement interests were served by local police officers delay while waiting for state police officer to arrive to conduct dwi investigation because state officers had more dwi experience and local officers needed to be available to respond to emergencies
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.