With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (3d Cir.1993); United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116, 127 (4th Cir.1991); United States v. Bailey, 691 F.2d 1009 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Gilman, 684 F.2d 616, 620 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Barber, 557 F.2d 628 (8th Cir.1977); United States v. Newman, 490 F.2d 993 (10th Cir.1974); Fletcher v. Wainwright, 399 F.2d 62 (5th Cir.1968); Erickson v. State, 181 P.3d 1117 (Alaska Ct.App.2008); State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 613 A.2d 1300, 1314 (1992); State v. Parks, 977 So.2d 1015 (La.Ct.App.2008); Commonwealth v. Jeffries, 454 Pa. 320, 311 A.2d 914, 918 (1973). 33 . Coggins, 986 F.2d at 652. 34 . United States v. Beck, 602 F.2d 726, 729-30 (5th Cir.1979); see also United States v. Pirolli, 673 F.2d 1200, 1204 (11th Cir.1982) (same). 35 . See, e.g., Fletcher, 399 F.2d at 64 (<HOLDING>); Jeffries, 311 A.2d at 918 (concluding that

A: holding that evidence obtained following the polices unconstitutional search of the defendants backpack which was not with the defendant at the time of the search and in which the police found a sawedoff shotgun was sufficiently far from the unconstitutional search because the challenged evidence was obtained as a result of the polices decision to pursue the defendant a decision they would have made even absent finding the sawedoff shotgun because the defendant was a person of interest in their underlying investigation
B: holding that since the polices initial entry was improper and the items were thrown out the window as a direct result of that illegality the police were not entitled to the fruits
C: holding appeal improper since the dismissal was voluntary
D: holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry
B.