With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their right to appeal the district court’s ruling on their motion to suppress. 2 . Because we hold that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Estrada-Nava and Colin, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we decline to reach the issue of whether the stop was motivated by a programmatic aim to enforce drug and weapons laws. 3 . We have cited only the facts relevant to our disposition of the case. 4 . Carmichael also testified that he thought Estrada-Nava was possibly fatigued or ill. 5 . The court noted that it has been clearly established in California that "weaving from one lane to another justifies an investigatory stop.” Id. 6 . There were no intervening events that purged the illegal taint. See United States v. Sigmond-Ballesteros, 285 F.3d 1117, 1127 (9th Cir.2002)

A: holding that evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful stop should have been suppressed because there were no intervening events that purged the illegal taint
B: holding lower court should have suppressed a statement that was obtained to an warrantless arrest made in appellants home
C: holding that consent to search did not purge the taint of an unlawful detention when no intervening circumstances sufficiently separated the consent from the unlawful detention
D: holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search
A.