With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Officer Calise called Timmann at 3:33 PM, he did not “confront” Timmann with the evidence the officers obtained through their illegal search of Timmann’s bedroom. During the call, Officer Calise did not tell Timmann .that the officers had entered Timmann’s apartment and found firearms and ammunition. Rather, Officer Calise only spoke to Tim-mann about the bullet hole in Carr’s wall, information the officers learned about lawfully. Thus, because Officer Calise did not use the evidence obtained via the officers’ unlawful search to induce Timmann’s statement that a friend had lent him a rifle which he accidentally discharged, the statement was not made “as a direct result” of the unlawful search and thus not a fruit of that search. But cf. Ruiz v. Craven, 425 F.2d 235, 236 (9th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Nikrasch, 367 F.2d 740, 744

A: holding that if police conduct  unconstitutional searches that acquire information used to obtain a search warrant then evidence seized during the later search conducted pursuant to warrant would be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree
B: holding incriminating statements defendant made when police officers questioned him regarding heroin the officers found during an unlawful search of defendants house were fruit of the poisonous tree
C: holding evidence found pursuant to warrant based on probable cause provided by prior illegal entry was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree
D: holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree
B.