Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
valid[.]” (citation omitted)). In Georgia v. Randolph, the Supreme Court reiterated a narrow exception to this rule, holding that “a physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant.” 547 U.S. at 122-23, 126 S.Ct. 1515; see also Fernandez, 134 S.Ct. at 1134 (emphasizing Randolph does not extend to cases where the objector is not present and objecting). Put another way, the Supreme Court has held that “a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.” Id. at 120, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (footnote omitted) . Subsequent courts have applied Randolph in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that each occupant of a car has a right to challenge the propriety of a traffic stop under the fourth amendment
B. holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle
C. holding that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling was reasonable as to one occupant who gave consent but not to another who did not
D. holding search invalid under the fourth amendment when a physicallypresent occupant expressly objected to a search  notwithstanding the consent of a fellow occupant
E. holding defendants girlfriend had authority to consent to search as a joint occupant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.