With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the drags and paraphernalia shortly after the stop. But, as the court of appeals correctly noted, this is the least important Brown factor. See State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452, 459, 702 P.2d 681, 688 (1985); see also McBath v. State, 108 P.3d 241, 248 (Alaska App.2005) (noting that “in essentially every case,” the time between an illegal stop and the discovery of evidence is short). ¶ 11 Regarding Brown’s second factor, the discovery of a valid arrest warrant is an intervening circumstance because it provides a legal basis for the arrest notwithstanding an illegal seizure. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 3.1(e) (warrant issued upon probable cause); 3.3(b) (warrant executed by arrest of defendant); see also People v. Murray, 312 Ill.App.3d 685, 245 Ill.Dec. 430, 728 N.E.2d 512, 517 (2000) (<HOLDING>). A law enforcement officer who previously

A: holding it would be illogical and nonsensical to suggest police cannot arrest subject of illegal detention after discovery of valid warrant
B: holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant
C: holding taint from illegal detention attenuated by discovery of outstanding warrant where there was no evidence officer stopped appellant solely to request identity in order to run warrant check
D: holding that initial illegal detention does not call into question validity of arrest pursuant to valid warrant wjhere the police effectuate an arrest in an illegal manner but nonetheless have probable cause to make the arrest the proper fourth amendment remedy is to exclude only that evidence which is a fruit of the illegality
A.