With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 950 F.2d 1508, 1518-19 (10th Cir.1991)). The district court order granting Senior’s motions to suppress is AFFIRMED. The portion of the district court’s order granting Junior’s motion to suppress marijuana due to an invalid warrantless search is REVERSED, and his case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . The government does not dispute this finding. 2 . The government conceded below that the area inside Junior’s chain-link fence was within the curtilage of Junior’s house. 3 . The government argued below that even if the marijuana was within the curtilages of Defendants’ homes, the aerial observation of the marijuana nonetheless did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search under Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Although the district court found the instant

A: holding that society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy
B: holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home
C: holding that aerial observation of a greenhouse within the curtilage from a helicopter passing at an altitude of four hundred feet did not violate owners reasonable expectation of privacy
D: holding that for purposes of aerial surveillance using sophisticated equipment the open areas of an industrial or business complex are not analogous to the curtilage of a dwelling but falls somewhere between open fields and curtilage
C.