With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the money would have provided probable cause to search the vehicle. Id. citing Commonwealth v. Pinto, 45 Mass.App.Ct. 790, 793 (1998). This analysis, however, is inapplicable in light of the above conclusion that the bag of money found in the Taurus’ trunk was, in the first instance, obtained unlawfully. Without the discovery of the bag of money, the police would have had no reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause, to initiate either the canine check or the more intrusive search of the trunk. See Commonwealth v. Sinforoso, 434 Mass, at 324. Accordingly, this Court finds that the search of the Taurus’ trunk was an indirect product of the previous unlawful search and seizure and that the objects discovered as a result must be suppressed. Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 376 Mass, at 505 (<HOLDING>) handgun”). ORDER For the reasons stated above,

A: holding that confronting a defendant with unlawfully seized evidence renders a subsequent statement involuntary and therefore inadmissible
B: holding that the admission of unlawfully seized evidence of a crime was admissible if the jury was instructed that the evidence could be considered only in assessing a defendants credibility and not for determining guilt
C: holding all evidence be suppressed traceable to the unlawfully seized
D: holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed
C.