Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
purged when only an hour had passed between the illegal seizure and the time the defendant gave his consent to search, id. at 356. The Buchanan Court also emphasized that the defendant did not move from his location of initial detention and “did not consult with an attorney prior to consenting to the search,” the latter of which forms a “crucial factor” in the attenuation analysis. Id. (quotation omitted). Because “[dissipation of the taint resulting from an illegal [seizure] ordinarily involves showing that there was some significant intervening time, space, or event,” and none was present here, the first two factors from Brown weigh in favor of suppression. See Lopez-Arias, 344 F.3d at 630 (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Griffith, 193 Fed.Appx. 538, 542 (6th Cir. 2006) . Turning to the third factor—the purpose and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action
B. holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute
C. holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government  completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search
D. holding that consent was the fruit of defendants arrest and that there were no intervening circumstances that would break that chain of causation under analogous facts
E. holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.