With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the driver, Paul Roach. The rental contract stated that no other drivers were permitted. Ramirez was injured when Roach struck her with the rental car and she obtained a default judgment against him. Ramirez then sued State Farm in an attempt to recover the judgment. Ramirez first contends that the district court erred in holding that the rental car was not a “temporary substitute car” covered by the policy. A “temporary substitute car” as defined in the policy is a car replacing a car that is unable to be used. This rental car was intended to be an additional car to serve the convenience of the renter. It was not a “temporary substitute car” within the meaning of the policy. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O’Brien, 14 Cal.3d 96, 98-99, 120 Cal.Rptr. 692, 534 P.2d 388 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Ramirez next contends that the district court

A: holding that surrounding drivers use of caution to avoid the appellants weaving vehicle did not render the weaving safe
B: holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics
C: holding that drivers decision to use alternate vehicle to avoid inconvenience of stopping at gas station did not render vehicle temporary substitute
D: holding that conviction for unauthorized use of vehicle merges with conviction for theft of same vehicle
C.