Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to find that it was being utilized as a commercial establishment related to the distribution of powdered and crack cocaine. Consequently, like the defendant in Talley, Thornton did not have a legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy in 2316 Eastview Avenue. Moreover, in the absence of evidence that Thornton was inside the house at 2316 Eastview Avenue with the permission of the person having authority over it, this Court must conclude that he was a trespasser. The Sixth Circuit has held that trespassers do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place on which they are trespassing. United States v. Hunyady, 409 F.3d 297 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1067, 126 S.Ct. 810, 163 L.Ed.2d 637 (2005). See also, United States v. McRae, 156 F.3d 708; 711 (6th Cir.1998) . However, even if the evidence had established
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rooming house residents had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the front hallway of the house they shared which was not obviously a rooming house open to the general public
B. holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car
C. holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it
D. holding that a defendant who had been living in a vacant house for approximately one week failed to demonstrate that he had a legitimate ex pectation of privacy
E. holding that a defendant who had borrowed a car for a limited period of time had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cars locked trunk where it was the very person from whom he had borrowed the car who first called the police after he failed to return the car
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.