Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
random seizures”). Even with the addition of the own the RV, “property rights are neither the beginning nor the end of [the relevant] inquiry.” United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 91, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980). The court must inquire “not merely whether the defendant had a possessory interest in the items seized, but whether he had an expectation of privacy in the area searched.” Id. at 92, 100 S.Ct. 2547; see also Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (finding that an overnight guest has a protected expectation of privacy in the home in which he stays). Generally speaking, persons who borrow cars have standing to challenge searches of the borrowed vehicles. Compare United States v. Baker, 221 F.3d 438, 442-43 (3d Cir.2000)  (citing multiple cases from other circuits);
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the driver of a ear owned by his wife who had given him permission to use it had a legitimate expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment
B. holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes
C. holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver
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 the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.