With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as appears defendants alone resided at the house. In light of the combined facts and circumstances it appears that defendants exhibited an expectation of privacy, and we believe that expectation was reasonable under the circumstances of the case. We can readily ascribe many reasons why residents would not want their castaway clothing, letters, medicine bottles or other telltale refuse and trash to be examined by neighbors or others, at least not until the trash has lost its identity and meaning by becoming part of a large conglomeration of trash elsewhere. Half truths leading to rumor and gossip may readily flow from an attempt to “read” the contents of another’s trash. Id. at 1104, 80 Cal.Rptr. at 638, 458 P.2d at 718; see State v. Stevens, 123 Wis.2d 303, 367 N.W.2d 788, 796 (1985) (<HOLDING>) State v. Schultz, 388 So.2d 1326, 1329

A: holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed in trash cans
B: holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home
C: holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business
D: recognizing ball and that as trash moves farther from the home and closer to the public the disposers reasonable expectation of privacy diminishes
D.