With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Chantal contend that the court abused its discretion concluding that the Porter Affidavit is not vit directly furthered these interests, and the integrity of the judicial process, by not permitting defendants to benefit from evidence obtained through improper contact, with jurors. We therefore conclude that it was a permissible sanction. To conclude otherwise would allow defendants facing imprisonment to contact jurors at will in an effort to obtain information that might upset the jury’s verdict. Many jurors would no doubt feel threatened or intimidated by such contacts, and excluding evidence that is improperly obtained from jurors effectively deters such contacts and preserves the integrity of our judicial process. Cf. United States v. Soto-Soto, 598 F.2d 545, 550 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude that the court

A: holding that the government may not introduce evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment
B: recognizing that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statute serves as only effective deterrent of such violations
C: holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation
D: holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required
B.