Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
So.2d 220 (Fla.1982); Cohen Bros., LLC v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Jatar v. Lamaletto, 758 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Adams v. State, 436 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). An expectation of privacy in a business “is not one which society is willing to protect.” Morningstar, 428 So.2d at 221 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Hill v. State, 422 So.2d 816 (Fla.1982)). Based on the record before us, it is evident that the defendant made telephone calls to the victim’s business telephone line, located in the victim’s home where he conducted his business. Although the victim may enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home, that expectation is not extended to his business. See Morningstar, 428 So.2d at 221 . We find that there was insufficient evidence
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movement from one place to another
B. holding that for purposes of federal constitutional law a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to trash discarded outside the home
C. holding a person who is present at anothers home with permission simply for the purpose of consummating a business transaction does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there
D. holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home
E. holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.