With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". defendant if he wanted to give "his side of the story,” State v. Eli, 126 Hawai'i 510, 523, 273 P.3d 1196, 1209 (2012); where an officer questioned a putative rape victim about discrepancies in her polygraph exam and encouraged her to tell the truth, State v. Roman, 70 Haw. 351, 358, 772 P.2d 113, 117 (1989); and where an officer presented the defendant with incriminating evidence in the form of written witnesses' statements and oral explanations of that evidence, State v. Uganiza, 68 Haw. 28, 30, 702 P.2d 1352, 1355 (1985). By comparison, we have held that a statement was not the product of interrogation where an officer requested the defendant’s consent to search a nylon bag beneath the driver's seat of a car, State v. Rippe, 119 Hawai'i 15, 22-24, 193 P.3d 1215, 1222-24 (App.2008) (<HOLDING>); or where a sign language interpreter asked a

A: holding evidence did not connect defendant to narcotics found in individual bags inside a larger bag in a car following the defendants car when the only connection was his fingerprints on outer bag and when the driver and passenger of the car in which the drugs were found exhibited nervousness and other factors indicating consciousness of guilt
B: holding that the factfinder may conclude that recovery is not likely when the car is left on street with keys in the car
C: holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause
D: holding however that a followup question concerning defendants ownership of the car along with statement that the bag was found inside the car did constitute interrogation because this was likely to elicit an incriminating response
D.