With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, section 9, also encompasses the right to be free from the use of evidence obtained in violation of that state constitutional provision. See State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 249, 834 P2d 1008 (1992) (so stating). In that vein, this court has explained that the aim of the Oregon exclusionary rule is to restore a defendant to the same position as if “the government’s officers had stayed within the law.” Davis, 295 Or at 234. Thus, in deciding the applicability of the Oregon exclusionary rule, the critical inquiry is whether the state obtained the evidence sought to be suppressed as a result of a violation of the defendant’s rights under Article I, section 9. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 327 Or 366, 379-80, 963 P2d 642 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Although the aim of the Oregon exclusionary

A: holding evidence obtained following unlawful police conduct nevertheless admissible because evidence not obtained by virtue of that unlawful conduct
B: holding that statements obtained following an illegal arrest are no less tainted than is physical evidence obtained after the same
C: holding that the doctrine may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct
D: holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree
A.