With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Supr., 647 A.2d 1078 (1994). 6 . Stipulation of the parties (7/24/98). 7 . 18 U.S.C. § 2510 etseq. 8 . 11 Del. C. § 1336(b)(1). 9 . 11 Del. C. § 1336(a)(ll). 10 . 11 Del. C. § 1336(a)(9). This language is modeled after 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2), into which Congress purposefully incorporated the "reasonable expectation of privacy” test enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). See S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 66 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112, 2163, 2178 (recognizing that definition of oral communication reflects existing law, citing Katz, supra ). See also Christopher K. Murphy, Electronic Surveillance, Twenty-Sixth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, 85 o be an "experienced criminal lawyer,” without more, does noth 1974) (<HOLDING>). 20 . See generally Smith v. Maryland, 442

A: holding that reasonableness for qualified immunity purposes requires an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances
B: holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances
C: holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable
D: holding that admissibility of a confession is governed by determining from the totality of the circumstances whether or not it was made voluntarily
C.