With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". probative of fraud' — • sufficiently advanced beyond the stage of a mere suspicion ... to incite the victim to investigate.” Fujisawa Pharm. Co. v. Kapoor, 115 F.3d 1332, 1335 (7th Cir.1997), quoted in Tello v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., '410 F.3d 1275, 1284 (11th Cir.2005). Once a plaintiff has inquiry notice, we ask when the investor, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the facts constituting the alleged fraud. The answer to that second question tells us when the statute of limitations began to run. The question of whether inquiry notice exists is objective and contemplates a “reasonable investor” or “reasonable person” standard. See, e.g., Newman v. Warnaco Group, Inc., 335 F.3d 187, 193 (2d Cir.2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>); Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 260 F.3d

A: holding that a plaintiff need not have notice of the defendants specific intention to deceive before the fraud action accrued all that is relevant is that a reasonable person  would have been on notice of a potential misrepresentation
B: holding that statements given after miranda warnings are admissible even when the arrest that preceded the statements was constitutionally deficient
C: holding reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome
D: holding that inquiry notice of securities fraud is triggered when the plaintiff receives sufficient storm warnings to alert a reasonable person to the probability that there were either misleading statements or significant omissions involved
D.