With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". factually distinguishable. Corea involved the State’s attempt to validate a warrantless search conducted with the consent of a third party whom the State alleged had apparent authority. Id. at 315. After police officers received a tip that the defendant possessed stolen property, the officers went to the defendant’s apartment and received written consent to search the apartment from the defendant’s brother-in-law, who was a resident of the apartment. The officers then conducted a search of the defendant’s bedroom and discovered a paper bag containing cocaine. The trial court found that the brother-in-law had apparent authority to consent to the search and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. Id. at 314-15. In reversing the trial court’s jud -Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Unlike Corea, appellant was never suspected

A: holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept
B: holding that child residents had no actual or apparent authority to consent to search of mothers home
C: holding search not to violate fourth amendment where officers belief that apparent landlord had the power to consent and that he had not revoked that consent was reasonable emphasis added
D: holding that babysitter living in home connected via ramp to defendants home had no authority to consent to search of defendants home
B.