With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Until now, the Sixth Circuit has not settled on a definitive approach to the problem addressed in Sei-bert. Rather, we have been able to avoid the question by finding that the outcomes in the cases before us would be the same under either the plurality’s or Justice Kennedy’s framework. See, e.g., Wooten, 602 Fed.Appx. at 272 (“In addition, this circuit and the First Circuit have avoided ruling on the issue in cases in which the outcome would be the same under either framework ... we conclude that the same resolution is appropriate here.”); United States v. McConer, 530 F.3d 484, 497-98 (6th Cir.2008) (ruling that “neither the plurality nor the concurrence in Seibert supports [defendant’s] Miranda argument”); United States v. Pacheco-Lopez, 531 F.3d 420, 427 n. 11 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cundiff, 555 F.3d 200, 210

A: holding all evidence be suppressed traceable to the unlawfully seized
B: holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed
C: holding lower court should have suppressed a statement that was obtained to an warrantless arrest made in appellants home
D: holding that regardless of the applicable framework defendants statement must be suppressed
D.