With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to establish probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Neither was defendant’s confession obtained by trickery, duress, or in violation of his right to counsel. Because defendant’s arrest and Gardin’s seizure of the white gold watch and topaz ring were valid, there is no unconstitutional activity to taint the confession which followed adequate Miranda warnings and defendant’s knowing and intelligent waiver of rights. Defendant’s allegations of duress are meritless since they arise only from the fact that while questioning defendant, law enforcement officials confronted him with the white gold watch and topaz ring seized from his bedroom by Curtis Gardin. Because these items were lawfully obtained, their exclusion is not required under State v. Silva, 304 N.C. 122, 282 S.E.2d 448 (1981) (<HOLDING>). We consequently overrule this assignment of

A: holding all evidence be suppressed traceable to the unlawfully seized
B: holding under  3901 that because officers entered without knocking and announcing the subsequent arrest was invalid and the evidence seized inadmissible
C: holding that evidence seized pursuant to a warrant based on materially false and misleading information is inadmissible at trial
D: holding that confronting a defendant with unlawfully seized evidence renders a subsequent statement involuntary and therefore inadmissible
D.