With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had broken into their home, Principal Hart proceeded to show her photographs in an effort to help her determine who had bothered her and her family. Principal Hart was not acting pursuant to any educational or disciplinary policies, nor was he acting as a law enforcement officer conducting an investigation on behalf of the State. Principal Hart was not affiliated with any law enforcement agency, he had no arrest power, and he had no knowledge of any criminal investigation being conducted. See In re Phillips, 128 N.C. App. 732, 735, 497 S.E.2d 292, 294 (1998). Rather, Principal Hart’s actions were more akin to that of a parent, friend, or other concerned citizen offering to help the victim of a crime. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 201 N.C. App. 103, 108, 685 S.E.2d 534, 538 (2009) (<HOLDING>). The mere fact that Principal Hart was a

A: holding that the friend of an eyewitness to a robbery who called the witness to view the defendant as he was being arrested by police was not acting as an agent of the state but rather a private citizen and therefore the protections of the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rule for improper identification procedures did not apply to the eyewitnesss identification at the showup
B: holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification
C: holding that the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rules are not implicated by a private search
D: holding that a showup identification was valid even though the suspect was handcuffed
A.