With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1330 (8th Cir.1985) (staling that Fifth Amendment right to counsel stems from privilege against self-incrimination and is not an independent right and that consent to search is not an incriminating statement because it is not testimonial, nor is physical evidence obtained pursuant to search); State v. Moralo, 619 N.W.2d 655, 662 (S.D.2000) (stating that "[a]n officer's request that a suspect consent to a search, however, is not an interrogation or its functional equivalent” and "Morato’s consent to search does not constitute an incriminating statement”); State v. Crannell, 170 Vt. 387, 750 A.2d 1002, 1009 (2000) (concluding that the request for consent to search did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights); contra United States v. Yan, 704 F.Supp. 1207, 1211-12 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>); State v. Britain, 156 Ariz. 384, 752 P.2d 37,

A: holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime
B: recognizing two aspects to assertion of fifth amendment rights 1 a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand request was made for an attorney and 2 the request was for assistance with a custodial interrogation not for subsequent hearings or proceedings
C: holding that a request for search constitutes an interrogation
D: holding that a consent to search is not an interrogation within the meaning of miranda
C.