Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
dominion or control over the property and did not have the right to exclude others from the garage area in which the truck was parked. Because the gate was open, music was playing at a sufficient volume for the deputies to hear it, Myrick and his brother were drawing attention to their location by singing, the truck windows allowed the deputies to see inside, and the garage door was left open, Myrick did not take precautions customarily taken by those seeking privacy. Further, there was no evidence that Myrick put the place to private use (there was no testimony that personal items were kept at the property), and nothing suggests a claim of privacy in this context is consistent with historical notions of privacy. See Beck v. State, 583 S.W.2d 338, 345 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) . We hold that Myrick did not meet his burden
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant had standing to challenge the seizure of a box regardless of who owned it because it was in a house owned and possessed by defendant
B. holding that police chiefs son who alleged that he was denied an interview for a position because his father had criticized the local officials did not have standing to assert the first amendment rights of his father
C. holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle
D. holding that adult child who maintained his own residence separate from his fathers household but regularly vacationed and kept gear at his fathers vacation home was not a resident of his fathers household and therefore not an insured under his fathers insurance policy covering the vacation home
E. holding defendant who was employee of and had key to his fathers business  premises searched  lacked standing to challenge search of building his father owned
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.