Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the officer’s unlawful conduct (e.g., an unconstitutional search or arrest). The evidence must be such that it would not have been obtained but for the unlawful conduct of the investigating officer. We are of the opinion that G.S. 15A-974(2) requires, at a minimum, this sort of causal connection between violations of Chapter 15A and the evidence objected to if such evidence is to be suppressed. In so holding, we do not decide that a mere “cause in fact” or “but-for” relationship is sufficient ipso facto to require exclusion of evidence obtained as a consequence of substantial violations of Chapter 15A. In certain cases, intervening circumstances might “dissipate the taint” of unlawfulness so that such evidence would be admissible at trial. See, e.g., Wong Sun v. United States, supra . We leave all such decisions to future cases.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the government may not introduce evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment
B. holding that only materials which were included in the pretrial record and that would have been admissible evidence may be considered
C. holding admissible certain evidence which would not have been obtained but for violations of constitutional requirements
D. holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
E. holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.