With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. Const. amend. IV; Me. Const. art. I, § 5; State v. Glover, 2014 ME 49, ¶ 10, 89 A.3d 1077. This authority applies to defendants who have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the location of the search. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). [¶ 16] The owner of a home has the right to consent to a warrantless search by law enforcement. Fernandez v. California, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 1132, 188 L.Ed.2d 25 (2014). However, the United States Supreme Court has generally recognized that an overnight guest in a home has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that home. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990); see also Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 488-90 & n. 7, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 17] An officer may conduct a warrantless

A: holding that hotel night clerks consent to search an occupied guest room was not valid consent and the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible
B: holding that while a mother could consent to a search of her sons room she did not have authority to consent to a search of a locked footlocker within the room
C: holding that search of hotel room without a search warrant and without consent of absent guest was unlawful even though hotel clerk had consented to search
D: holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government  completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search
A.