With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". intrusions into areas where they have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 664 (2d Cir.2004); see U.S. Const, amend IV. As an overnight guest in Bean’s apartment, Snype shared in his host’s legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990); accord United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313, 320 (2d Cir.1997). Although warrantless searches of private property are generally presumed to be unreasonable, the law recognizes certain exceptions, for example, when the search is conducted pursuant to the consent of an authorized person. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Lewis, 386 F.3d 475, 481 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). “The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require

A: holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant
B: recognizing that where authorized party consents to search neither a warrant nor probable cause is necessary
C: holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
D: holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
B.