Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have obtained it by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the taint of the initial police illegality. When applying that doctrine, we always must keep in mind two distinct policy justifications that bear on the answer to that issue. The first is that the predicate for Oregon’s exclusionary rule is the court’s responsibility to vindicate the invasion by the police of a defendant’s personal rights under Article I, section 9, in obtaining evidence. This court has held that an individual’s personal right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under that provision also embraces a right to deny the state any ability to use evidence obtained in violation of that right to convict the individual of a crime. See State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 249, 834 P2d 1008 (1992) . Oregon’s rights-based exclusionary rule
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing principle but finding evidence at first trial sufficient
B. recognizing this principle in the childpornography context
C. recognizing this principle as a settled rule
D. recognizing principle
E. recognizing this principle in the failure to hire context
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.