With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to that fact, it should have been dispelled by Breshears’s unequivocal declaration that he lived there. Further, when Wyles arrived, Deputy Cameron perceived that Wyles and Breshears were acquainted with each other. Under these circumstances, we believe that it was unreasonable for Deputy Cameron to rely on Wyles’s consent to enter Breshears’s residence without further inquiry and further evidence that Breshears had been lawfully evicted. Deputy Cameron’s reliance on the fact that Wyles was the owner of the property- and his claim that Breshears was trespassing as his sole basis for entry into a dwelling known by the officer to be a rental unit was the type of consent that was of course long ago found not to pass constitutional muster. See Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the Fourth Amendment required

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 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
C: holding that a landlord could not validly consent to the search of a house he had rented to another
D: holding that a landlord cannot validly consent to a search of a tenants apartment despite ownership and legal authority to enter the premises
C.