Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Sugar and Stark to continue on their way, however, he held them there until a canine unit arrived. The question is whether this 10 to 15 minute-long seizure was justified by reasonable suspicion. First, in his initial encounter with defendants, Crivello said he would hold the vehicle until the canine came if defendants refused to consent to a search. But an assertion of one’s constitutional rights should not be the basis for an otherwise unjustified detention. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (“We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.”) (citations omitted). In fact, their refusal to consent to the 6 (1st Cir.1990) ; Soule, 908 F.2d at 1036 (holding that where
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence was insufficient to link defendant to drugs in borrowed vehicle when the drugs were not in plain view the defendant disavowed knowledge that drugs were hidden in floorboard of car and a person antagonistic toward defendants husband had access to the car before she borrowed it
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 the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
D. holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes
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.