Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the search. She also assigned error to certain of the trial court’s findings of fact. Although the Court of Appeals held that Ellen consented to the search, it did not address her challenge to the trial court’s findings. She did F.2d 883, 885 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (upholding the validity of a warrantless search where the defendant was present and did not consent, but his wife did consent, because the rule developed in Mat-lock did not depend on the defendant’s absence); People v. Sanders, 904 P.2d 1311, 1313 (Colo. 1995) (“The valid consent of a person with ‘common authority’ will justify a warrantless search of a residence despite the physical presence of a nonconsenting co-occupant.”); State v. Frame, 45 Or. App. 723, 609 P.2d 830, 833 (1980) ; 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that warrantless search of defendants vehicle was legal because defendants consent was voluntary even through he was in police custody at the time of giving consent
B. holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion
C. holding that the consent to search given by the defendants wife and cohabitant was an effective consent because it was consistent with the rationale set forth in united states v matlock
D. holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given
E. holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession  for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.