With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Lopez-Mendoza allows law enforcement agents to approach anyone at anytime, even in an egregious or violent manner, which was not the case here, and demand that the person identify themselves and then would allow the government use that information against that person. The Court acknowledges that the INS must have a way to combat illegal reentry. However, giving law enforcement officials an incentive to discover a person’s identity in whatever way they can puts the privacy rights of legal aliens and any citizen that might for any reason be suspected of illegal entry at too great a risk. In addition, the suppression of the defendant’s statement of his identity will not hamper the INS in civil deportation proceedings. See Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1043, 104 S.Ct. at 3485 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, this Court declines to follow

A: holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation hearings where ins must only prove identity and alienage
B: holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
C: holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings
D: holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings
A.