With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (suppressing evidence that police officer gathered pursuant to an unconstitutional stop); United States v. Millan, 36 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir.1994) (“Because the interrogation and search were a direct result of the illegal stop, we hold that all of the evidence must be suppressed.”). We further conclude that Estrada-Nava’s and Colin’s consent to search their car was unlawfully obtained pursuant to the illegal stop and therefore did not purge the taint. See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 727 (9th Cir.2001) (“[Evidence obtained subsequent to an illegal investigation is tainted by the illegality and thus inadmissible, notwithstanding the suspect’s consent, unless subsequent events have purged the taint”), amended by 279 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.2002); Twilley, 222 F.3d at 1097 (<HOLDING>). C. Ex Parte Application for Out-of-District

A: holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search
B: holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis
C: holding that where information obtained from illegal warrantless search of a briefcase was used to establish probable cause for the warrant to search briefcase evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant was properly suppressed
D: holding lower court should have suppressed a statement that was obtained to an warrantless arrest made in appellants home
A.