With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 14, 2003). 24 . See also United States v. Esquivel, 507 F.3d 1154, 1159 (8th Cir.2007) (identifying a non-exhaustive list of Schneckloth voluntariness factors and including inter alia: "whether the police made promises or misrepresentations ”); United States v. Laine, 270 F.3d 71, 75 (1st Cir.2001) (identifying the absence of police "trickery” as a voluntariness factor); United States v. Lace, 669 F.2d 46, 52 (2d Cir. 1982) (identifying "the absence of any deception, coercion, or other overreaching on the part of the police” as a voluntariness factor); Brown v. Brierley, 438 F.2d 954, 957-59 (3d Cir.1971) (considering police deception as a relevant issue, but ultimately finding consent valid under the circumstances); Vizbaras v. Prieber, 761 F.2d 1013, 1014-15, 1017 (4th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Buchanan, 904 F.2d 349, 355

A: holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted
B: holding that no intentional police misrepresentation occurred
C: holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient
D: holding no intentional spoliation occurred where defendant was not on notice that evidence was relevant to claim
B.