Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and the objective reasonableness of the expectation of privacy considering the specific facts of the case.” Gomez, 16 F.3d at 256. See also, McCaster, 193 F.3d at 83-84 (8th Cir.1997) (finding abandonment where the defendant told officers bag was not his and that he had never seen it before). Even without this express disclaimer by Defendant, the seizure and search of the trash bag would still not be subject to suppression. The Supreme Court held in California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988), that there is no expectation of privacy in a trash bag left in an area accessible by others, including animals, children, scavengers and members of the public. Id. 486 U.S. at 40, 108 S.Ct. 1625; accord, United States v. Trice, 864 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (8th Cir.1988) . The lack of an expectation of privacy is even
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic bags placed in or near his open garbage cans and that the police did not violate his fourth amendment rights in seizing and searching the bags where they were able to do so without trespassing on the defendants property
B. holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street
C. holding that while the necessary regulation of garbage must compel a person to reasonably expect that a licensed trash collector will remove his garbage this expectation does not also infer an expectation of governmental intrusion
D. holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed in trash cans
E. holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.