With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applications, fraudulent birth certificates, ‘boiler — plate’ political asylum applications, fictitious stories outlining political persecution, [and] receipts and financial records relating to these asylum applications, including computer records.” II. Appellants next argue that the INS agents’ search was conducted in “flagrant disregard” of the warrant so that all fruits of the search must be suppressed. Again, we disagree. Government agents “flagrantly disregard” the terms of a warrant so that wholesale suppression is required only when (1) they effect a “widespread seizure of items that were not within the scope of the warrant,” United States v. Matias, 836 F.2d 744, 748 (2d Cir.1988), and (2) do not act in good faith, see Marvin v. United States, 732 F.2d 669, 675 (8th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lambert, 771 F.2d 83, 93

A: holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment
B: holding that where government agents were authorized by a warrant to search for broad categories of documentary evidence and records belonging to each category were found in every drawer of some file cabinets the officers did not grossly exceed the terms of the warrant when they seized entire file cabinets so that complete suppression was required
C: holding that if the application for a warrant contains probable cause apart from the improper information then the warrant is lawful and the independent source doctrine applies providing that the officers were not prompted to obtain the warrant by what they observed during the initial entry
D: holding that complete suppression is inappropriate where government agents attempted to stay within the boundaries of the warrant and  the extensive seizure of documents was prompted largely by practical considerations and time constraints
D.