Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
had the authority to consent to a search of the [woman’s] purse.” Id. Guided by Glenn, we reach a similar result here. In the appellant’s case, it was unreasonable for Investigator Sapp to conclude that the appellant’s girlfriend had the authority to consent to the search of the bag because she specifically told Sapp that the bag belonged to the appellant. Sapp was not required to speculate about who owned it. See also, e.g., United States v. Zapata-Tamallo, 833 F.2d 25, 27 (2d Cir.1987) (recognizing that consent to search provided by the owner of premises “is generally invalid when it is ‘obvious’ that the searched item belongs to a guest” (quoting United States v. Isom, 588 F.2d 858, 861 (2d Cir.1978))). Compare United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 863-65 (10th Cir.1992) , with United States v. Ruiz, 428 F.3d 877,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the opening of a makeup bag was justified when a woman had grabbed the bag when the officer turned away had resisted it being taken from her the bag felt heavy her companion had been armed the previous day and the officer and individual were alone
B. holding defendants girlfriend had authority to consent to search as a joint occupant
C. holding that girlfriend lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to the search of her boyfriends bag which he stored in her apartment because she identified the bag as his and no evidence indicated that she exercised mutual use or possessed  joint interest and control over it
D. holding that where a defendant left his duffel bag at his cousins house and authorized the cousin to use the bag the cousin clearly had authority to consent to its search
E. holding that search of shoulder bag was not authorized by search warrant for apartment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.