With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Oregon illegal stop strongly support the questionable testimony of Holmes and Youngs, who both made deals with the Government. The drug evidence seized at the residence and in the storage unit did not itself prove any conspiracy. A small amount of evidence seized at the storage unit might tend to inculpate Bishop as maintaining an establishment of a methamphetamine operation, but this evidence standing by itself is far from conclusive guilt as to that count. The lynehpin of guilt upon both counts was the much more incriminating evidence found in Bishop’s automobile in June 1998 when the illegal search was made. The testimony of Youngs that the car trip was in furtherance of the conspiracy clearly was inadmissible as fruit of the illegal stop. See Ramirez-Sandoval, 872 F.2d at 1396 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). We find that it is

A: holding that an exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applies where the police would have obtained the evidence if no illegality had occurred
B: holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred
C: holding that the prosecution must establish a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means that the leads making the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police prior to the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing the alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct
D: holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred
D.