With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is preceded by a Fourth Amendment violation, the State, in addition to proving the voluntariness of the consent, must also establish a break in tire causal connection between the illegality and the evidence thereby obtained. [Citation omitted.]’ ” Grace, 28 Kan. App. 2d at 460. The Rice court determined that events between an illegal detention and a search did not purge the original taint. The factors the court relied on in holding that the subsequent consent did not purge the initial illegality were: (1) the lack of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity of the defendant, (2) the lack of intervening events between the illegal seizure and the consent, and (3) the intensifying pressure applied by the officers to the visitors. 264 Kan. at 243-44. See Grace, 28 Kan. App. 2d at 460-61 (<HOLDING>). Here, even if Wilson consented to the search,

A: holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government  completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search
B: holding that consent to search did not purge the taint of an unlawful detention when no intervening circumstances sufficiently separated the consent from the unlawful detention
C: holding that defendants voluntary consent to search his apartment dissipated taint of prior illegal search
D: holding waiver to search invalid when individual was implicitly threatened with illegal detention if he did not consent
B.