With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". after the FBI told Whitacre to get rid of the tapes. That friend, David Hoech, denied destroying any tapes. It follows that because no evidence was destroyed, its exculpatory nature could not have been apparent before its destruction. Furthermore, because Whitacre recanted his allegation that the FBI ordered him to destroy tapes — an allegation that was far from credible even when made — no evidence indicates bad faith by the government. b. Federal Wiretap Laws The defendants further contend that the tape recordings violated federal wiretap laws, and therefore must be excluded from trial based on 18 U.S.C. § 2515, which prohibits the evidentiary use of any illegally obtained tape recording. Two exceptions to § 2515 potentially apply. First, § 2511(2)(c) allows the use of tap Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 455, 476

A: holding that informant acted under color of law when fbi supervised recording
B: holding that tapes made by fbi informant were admissible under  25112ed
C: holding that various data tapes were owned or obtained by the agency even though they were neither created by agency employees nor  currently located on agency property because the firm that created the tapes acted on behalf of the agency in creating the tapes
D: holding that defendants statements made to an informant were admissible even though the informant lied about his identity
B.