With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in cash. Also, the state emphasizes that defendant does not contend that the 10-minute detention for the purpose of permitting the victim to make an identification was unlawful. The state argues that, under the circumstances, the police did not exploit or trade on the fact that they handcuffed defendant and put him in a patrol car to obtain the victim’s identification of him and that, therefore, the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. We agree with the state’s argument. The fact that the identification by the victim occurred after an illegal arrest does not automatically result in its exclusion from evidence if the identification would have occurred anyway as a result of the lawful stop. See generally State v. Rodriguez, 317 Or 27, 38-42, 854 P2d 399 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Here, defendant does not contest the legality

A: holding that suppression of secondary evidence depends on whether the police obtained the evidence through an exploitation of the prior illegality
B: holding that an exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applies where the police would have obtained the evidence if no illegality had occurred
C: holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material
D: holding that a confession obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest is not admissible
A.