Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). To satisfy this requirement, the party must show, among other things, that he “has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury” and that “the injury or threat of injury [is] both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 101-02, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (quotations omitted). Here, although Yanke’s home has not yet been searched, he has been assessed a surcharge of $100 per month since July 2003 because he has failed to comply with the Ordinance’s inspection requirement. The Court finds, therefore, that Yanke’s injury is concrete and immediate. Accordingly, Yanke has standing to bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 797 (9th Cir.2001) . The Court now turns to the City’s argument
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding tenants leasing house by oral agreement were coinsureds both landlord and tenants had liability insurance
B. holding that tenants had standing to bring fourth amendment claim where tenants were threatened with eviction unless they consented to allegedly unreasonable warrantless searches
C. holding landlord and tenants obligations mutually dependent
D. holding that police officers warrantless search of rented home with consent of landlord but not tenant violated tenants fourth amendment rights
E. holding tenants vacating premises allegedly in breach of a lease was not enough to trigger c 93a liability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.