With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Grandberry, 730 F.3d at 976. However, because we have determined that the police’s initial entry and search were unconstitutional, the government has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence obtained during the parole search was not fatally flawed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 183, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). There are two exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine under which the evidence might be admissible: (1) the ‘inevitable discovery’ exception, and (2) the ‘attenuated basis exception.’ See United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Ramirez-Sandoval, 872 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1989)). These exceptions, while distinct, “converge to an extent, 9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Applying the attenuated basis and inevitable

A: holding that alleged statements to thirdparties did not substantiate a hostile work environment claim where there was insufficient information as to when the statements were made how knowledge of them was acquired and when the plaintiff was informed of them if she was
B: holding that the defendants unconstitutionally obtained statements to the police telling them that narcotics were located in the hood of his truck did not render the narcotics inadmissible because the police were trained to look under the hoods of vehicles when searching for drugs and therefore would have found them even had the defendant not directed them to look under the hood
C: holding that evidence supported finding of constructive possession of concealed narcotics in part because narcotics paraphernalia was found in residence
D: recognizing that jurors have the right to reject that part of the evidence believed by them to be untrue and to accept that found by them to be true
B.