Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
passenger gua passenger simply would not normally have a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the car or its contents. Id.; see also State v. Scott, 860 P.2d 1005, 1007-08 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (finding defendant passenger did not have an expectation of privacy in the car itself where he left some personal items in the glove box). T9 Bissegger argues, however, that she has standing to challenge the search of her personal belongings left in a closed container in the car. Although Utah appellate courts have not addressed this precise issue, other jurisdictions have overwhelmingly held that a separate search of a car passenger's personal belongings left in the car gives the passenger standing to challenge the search. See, e.g., United States v. Salazar, 805 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir.1986) ; People v. Manke, 181 Ill.App.3d 374, 130
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a car passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his closed plastic shopping bag found on the floor of the car
B. holding that a car passenger had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his closed brown paper bag found on the floorboard of his companions car
C. holding evidence did not connect defendant to narcotics found in individual bags inside a larger bag in a car following the defendants car when the only connection was his fingerprints on outer bag and when the driver and passenger of the car in which the drugs were found exhibited nervousness and other factors indicating consciousness of guilt
D. holding that car passenger had legitimate expectation of privacy in his jacket found crumpled on the back seat of car
E. holding that the owner of a shoulder bag located on the front seat of his girlfriends car had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag and its contents
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.