Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951)). In fact, the hotel staff had no authority even to enter Bass’s room, except for housekeeping purposes, unless (1) Bass himself consented or (2) his tenancy was terminated. United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir.1987) (noting that when “a hotel guest’s rental period has expired or been lawfully terminated, the guest does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room”); United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289, 1295-96 (8th Cir.1986). In this case, Bass’s tenancy had not been terminated by eviction at the time the police searched his hotel room. Although the hotel manager testified that he personally considered Bass evicted once he had been arrested, the manager’s personal beliefs have no legal import. See Stoner, 376 U.S. at 490 . The manager informed no one at the time that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that forfeiture statute is subject to the fourth amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures
B. holding that the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment so that evidence seized in violation of the constitution could no longer be used in state courts
C. holding sbm is not a violation of the defendants fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
D. recognizing that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures  would disappear if it were left to depend upon the unfettered discretion of an employee of the hotel
E. holding the parolees signature on parole agreement is not to be taken as an unrestricted consent to any and all searches whatsoever or as a blanket waiver of all constitutional rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.