Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the circumstantial evidence was not inconsistent with a passenger having placed the gun on the seat when they fled. See 724 So.2d at 1215. See also Bailey v. State, 442 So.2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In Daniels v. State, 718 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the defendant was driving a car when it was stopped by police. While the defendant was being handcuffed, a passenger was alone in the car. Police subsequently found a gun in the car that was not readily visible. This court reversed the defendant’s conviction for felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the State did not show that the defendant had actual knowledge of the gun or other circumstances from which the jury could possibly infer knowledge. See 718 So.2d at 1275. See also Green v. State, 586 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) . In the present case, there was no evidence
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendant possessed a firearm in connection with a crime when the firearm was kept in a car across the street from where the defendant was selling drugs
B. holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that defendant had knowledge of firearm in close proximity to him when he was driving the car for the cars owner who was a passenger
C. holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile
D. 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
E. holding that a defendant exercised control over a firearm that was found in a vehicle he was driving
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.