With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". L. 231 (1934); Harvard Research .Drañ Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime, art. 16, reprinted in 29 Am.J.Int’l L. 435, 623-32 (Supp.1935); Morgenstem, Jurisdiction in Seizures Effected in Violation of International Law, 29 Brit.Y.B. Int’l L. 265 (1952); Scott, Criminal Jurisdiction of a State Over a Defendant Based upon Presence Secured by Force or Fraud, 37 Minn.L. Rev. 91 (1953). Since we are bound by the precedence of Ker and Frisbie, we have no occasion to reexamine their wisdom. 17 . In United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974), the Second Circuit indicated that the precedence of Frisbie had been eroded by Supreme Court decisions establishing expanded notions of due process, such as Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (<HOLDING>). 500 F.2d at 272-73. The court in Toscanino

A: holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials
B: holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials
C: holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
D: holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule
B.