With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the security it afforded.” Id. (citation omitted). We agree with the analyses of these courts. Although appellant signed a Promissory Note and Security Agreement that stated Brown’s Mazda had the right to repossess the truck in the event of non-payment, Brown’s Mazda retained legal title to the truck only for purposes of security. Brown’s Mazda did not retain absolute ownership of the truck once appellant completed the paperwork and obtained delivery of the truck. To adopt appellant’s argument “would reward the industrious and designing thief who, having perpetrated the proper fraud by making false representations, could escape criminal liability as long as the official title remained with the owner as security.” State v. Meado, 163 Wis.2d 789, 472 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, appellant signed and received a

A: holding that statements obtained following an illegal arrest are no less tainted than is physical evidence obtained after the same
B: holding that the defendant obtained legal title to property where he obtained the vehicle under a lease arrangement by fraudulent representation
C: holding that a statement obtained in violation of miranda does not by its own force mandate the inadmissibility of subsequent similar statements that were constitution ally obtained
D: holding that no duty to disclose water damage existed where purchasers obtained property under an as is contract
B.