With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". stolen the money, and that he was acting in his private (vice duty) capacity in going to the appellant’s room. Record at 101-02. His primary motive was to be reimbursed for the money he had given LCpl Woods. The appellant was gone, but his roommate invited Cpl Cervantes into the room. Cpl Cervantes told the roommate he was looking for an envelope LCpl Woods’s wife had left, and asked if he could look in appellant’s “cammies” to see if perhaps it was there. The roommate agreed. Cpl Cervantes found the envelope — torn open — in the appellant’s cammies. The money was missing. Record at 102. We review the military judge’s decision on a suppression motion for an abuse of discretion, applying a clearly erroneous standard to his essential findings of fact, and we conduct a de novo re 1996)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Portt, 21 M.J. 333, 334

A: holding that fourth amendment claims are not cognizable on habeas review because the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not relate to the accuracy of the factfinding process
B: holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
C: recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule
D: holding that the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rules are not implicated by a private search
D.