With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". two for support). The fallacy of this position is that it confuses and commingles two conflicting strands of case law which follow opposing judicial routes. As noted above, in every case cited by the majority in footnote two, the fruits of a search were deemed admissible only after the search was found to be constitutional, i.e., distinctions as to admissibility of the fruits of a particular search against the consenting occupant and the nonconsenting occupant were never drawn. There is no authority for the majority’s proposition that the fruits of an unconstitutional search should be admitted into evidence. Indeed such a proposition violates one of the founding principles of the Fourth Amendment. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Most commentators also agree failure to

A: holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed
B: holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible
C: holding that regardless of the applicable framework defendants statement must be suppressed
D: holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed
A.