Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the choice of relying on consent by a third party or securing a warrant, should secure a warrant and must therefore accept the risk of error should they instead choose to rely on consent. II Our prior cases discussing searches based on third-party consent have never suggested that such searches are “reasonable.” In United States v. Matlock, this Court upheld a warrantless search conducted pursuant to the consent of a third party who was living with the defendant. The Court rejected the defendant’s challenge to the search, stating that a person who permits others to have “joint access or control for most purposes . . . assume[s] the risk that [such persons] might permit the common area to be searched.” 415 U. S., at 171, n. 7; see also Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 740 (1969) . As the Court’s assumption-of-risk analysis
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the opening of a makeup bag was justified when a woman had grabbed the bag when the officer turned away had resisted it being taken from her the bag felt heavy her companion had been armed the previous day and the officer and individual were alone
B. holding that defendant who left a duffel bag at anothers house and allowed joint use of the bag assumed the risk that the person would allow someone else to look inside
C. holding the opening and inventory of a shoulder bag was reasonable despite the possible alternative of securing the bag as a whole
D. 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
E. holding that where a defendant left his duffel bag at his cousins house and authorized the cousin to use the bag the cousin clearly had authority to consent to its search
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.