With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". there was also additional evidence to support probable cause—the observations from the power-line easement. II. THE OFFICERS DID NOT PERFORM AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH BY WALKING ALONG THE POWER LINE. In addition to Dupre’s observations from the helicopter, the affidavit in support of the search warrant relied on the officers’ observations from the ground. Rey does not argue, nor could he reasonably do so, that the combination of the two observations is insufficient to establish probable cause. Instead, the question is whether the officers’ walking along the power-line easement or right of way was an unlawful search. If it was an unlawful search, then the information obtained in that search cannot be used to support the later search warrant. See United States v. Hatfield, 333 F.3d at 1194 (<HOLDING>); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. at

A: holding that if police conduct  unconstitutional searches that acquire information used to obtain a search warrant then evidence seized during the later search conducted pursuant to warrant would be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree
B: holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree
C: holding evidence found pursuant to warrant based on probable cause provided by prior illegal entry was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree
D: holding incriminating statements defendant made when police officers questioned him regarding heroin the officers found during an unlawful search of defendants house were fruit of the poisonous tree
A.