Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
room. [Michael T. Flannery, First, Do No Harm: The Use of Covert Video Surveillance to Detect Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy — An Unethical Means of “Preventing” Child, Abuse, 32 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 105, 155-56 (1998).] Courts in other jurisdictions have reasoned similarly. See, e.g., Buchanan v. State, 432 So.2d 147, 148 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in emergency room of hospital); Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 669, 676-77 (Fla.1994) (observing that defendant reasonably could expect that police would not make warrantless seizure of his clothing, not found in plain view, in his hospital room), cert. denied sub nom., Jones v. Florida, 515 U.S. 1147, 115 S.Ct. 2588, 132 L.Ed.2d 836 (1995); Morris v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 331,157 S.E.2d 191, 195 (1967) . In this case, the order that resulted in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances
B. holding that hospital may be held liable for negligence of emergency room physicians under apparent agency doctrine
C. recognizing that at least for certain purposes a hospital room is fully under the control of the medical staff yet for other purposes it is the patients room  because patient understands that nurses doctors food handlers and others enter and exit hospital room in accordance with medical need and hospital routine
D. holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will
E. holding that warrantless seizure of defendants clothing from private hospital room was improper
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.