Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(noting as factors relevant to the showing “whether the party has a possessory interest in the things seized or the place searched; whether the party can exclude others from that place; whether the party took precautions to maintain the privacy; and whether the party had a key to the premises”). To meet the first part of the test with regard to items seized, the defendant must show by his conduct that he sought to preserve the items as private. Stallings, 28 F.3d at 60. Here, Defendant expressly disclaims having any ownership interest in the premises or the bag seized. As such, he lacks a sufficient privacy interest to support a motion to suppress the trash bag or the items located therein. See Pierson, 219 F.3d at 806; United States v. Sanders, 130 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (8th Cir.1997) ; accord United States v. Porter, 107 F.3d 582,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest
B. holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes
C. 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
D. holding that a car passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his closed plastic shopping bag found on the floor of the car
E. holding that the defendants statements disclaiming ownership of bag constitute a surrender of any legitimate expectation of privacy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.