Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
those who live in such humble circumstances to dwell there. That they cannot afford to have their own kitchens and bathrooms, and hallway access thereto, does not render such areas “public” with respect to the constitutional prerequisites for permissible entry by the police .... We should vigilantly guard against permitting ... inroads upon the reasonable expectations of privacy of the lesser situated of our citizens who are forced by economic circumstances to reside in rooming houses. People v. Garriga, 189 A.D.2d 236, 596 N.Y.S.2d 25, 29 (citation omitted), leave to appeal denied, 82 N.Y.2d 718, 602 N.Y.S.2d 815, 622 N.E.2d 316 (1993). We are aware that other courts have reached a contrary result on this issue. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 533 F.2d 1210, 1214 (D.C.Cir.1976); United States v. Perkins, 286 F.Supp. 259,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a dog sniff of the area outside the door of a hotel room is not a search under the fourth amendment or the texas constitution because the dogs sniff does not explore the details of the hotel room and the sniff reveals nothing about the room other than the presence of cocaine in which there is no legitimate privacy interest
B. holding that the defendant committed assault under section 70813 where he came into the apartment for about two seconds with a gun in his right hand held the gun straight down at his side said wrong door then closed the door and started knocking on the other apartments door
C. holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house
D. holding that arrest by the back door of defendants house was unlawful
E. holding that rooming house residents had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the front hallway of the house they shared which was not obviously a rooming house open to the general public
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.