In this question, is it true that A and B are wrong because "having standing" to contest is different than the issue of whether someone had actual/apparent authority to consent to a search?

The way I understand this question, A and B are talking about having standing in court to consent to a search, whereas correct answer D is talking on the consent to a search at the time of the search (not after the fact in court).

Please explain if this is a correct understanding.

Also, what is guidance for determining whether someone can consent to the search of a proeprty?

Question A defendant held up a drugstore at 10:30 at night and drove away. His car broke down in an isolated area just outside the small city in which the crime occurred. The defendant walked to the nearest house and asked the homeowner if he could stay until the next morning, explaining that he had been searching for his sister's home and had run out of gas. The homeowner agreed to let him sleep on a couch in the basement. During the course of the night, the homeowner began to doubt the story the defendant had told him. Early the next morning, the homeowner called the police and said he was suspicious and frightened of a stranger whom he had allowed to stay the night. The police went immediately to the house to assist the homeowner and walked through the open front door. They found the defendant and the homeowner drinking coffee in the kitchen. When they saw the defendant, they realized he matched the description of the drugstore robber. They arrested the defendant and in his jacket they found drugs taken during the robbery. The defendant moves to suppress the evidence of the drugs. If the court finds that the police did not have probable cause to believe the defendant was the robber until they saw him inside the homeowner's house and realized he matched the description, the court should A grant the motion, because, as a guest, the defendant has sufficient standing to contest the entry of the house without a warrant. B grant the motion, because, as a guest, the defendant has sufficient standing to contest the lack of probable cause at the time of the entry. C deny the motion, because the defendant had no ownership or other possessory interest in the premises. deny the motion, because the police had the permission of the owner to enter the house. v Explanation D is correct. The police may conduct a valid search or enter a home if they have voluntary consent, which is an exception to the warrant requirement. The validity of consent is based on the totality of the circumstances to determine whether it was freely given and not coerced. In this case, the homeowner called the police to say he was fearful of a stranger in his house. The police then immediately showed up to find the door open. These circumstances would lead the officers to believe that they had the homeowner's consent to enter the house to check on his safety. Once the police were properly in the house, they developed probable cause when they saw the defendant who matched the description of the robber. The police then could arrest the defendant and conduct a search incident to arrest. The defendant's motion to suppress should thus be denied. Ais incorrect. Even if the defendant had standing to contest the entry to the house, the police did not need a warrant because the police had a valid exception to the warrant requirement to enter. B is incorrect. As explained above, regardless of whether the defendant had proper standing to contest the police's entry, the homeowner gave valid consent and therefore, the motion should be denied. Cis incorrect. The defendant may have standing to challenge the entry even without ownership or possessory interest in the house; however, his standing is not dispositive because the police had a valid reason to enter the house