With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the city and the company that towed the car, Schimka Auto Wreckers, had violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizures. The case proceeded to trial, and the district court directed a verdict in favor of the City and Schimka after finding no violation of Kosyla’s rights. Kosyla appeals, and we affirm. Kosyla first argues that the district court erred when it determined that the police had the right, pursuant to an agreement with the condominium association, to enter the parking lot without a warrant. But the agreement is irrelevant. Kosyla did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the parking lot, which is a common area that she shares with other tenants. See, e.g., United States v. Villegas, 495 F.3d 761, 767-68 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Boden, 854 F.2d 983, 990

A: holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building
B: holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building
C: holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle
D: recognizing record supported determination that defendant lacked expectation of privacy in house
A.