With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Abdi, 463 F.3d at 557 n.13; Khan, 324 F.Supp.2d at 1187. D. The Court Must Suppress any Derivative Evidence Obtained as a Result of Pacheco’s Unlawful Seizure Under the “Fruit of the Poisonous , Tree” Doctrine. Because Pacheco’s warrantless arrest violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and the Fourth Amendment, the Court must suppress any “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of [that] illegality” under the exclusionary rule as “so-called [tainted] ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ” See Utah v. Strieff, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2056, 2061, 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (2016) (quotation omitted); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600-05, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (discussing the attenuation doc-triné); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>). The “exclusionary rule” serves as the primary

A: holding that fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to both physical evidence and verbal statements
B: holding that a suspect may invoke his miranda right to counsel only with respect to written statements while still permitting verbal statements without qualification
C: recognizing doctrine
D: holding that may is still controlling in north carolina in light of united states v pataneus 159 l ed 2d 667 124 s ct 2620 2004 in which the us supreme court held that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply to physical evidence discovered as a result of statements made by the defendant when no miranda warning was given
A.