Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in which police obtained a statement from the defendant in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights that led to the discovery of the body of his murder victim. 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). The Court reversed a grant of habeas to the defendant based on the use of evidence regarding the body at trial, finding that the exclusionary rule should not bar admission of evidence related to the body. Id. at 449-50, 104 S.Ct. 2501. The Court held that the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule applied because a search party, conducted entirely independently of the police interrogation of the defendant, was in the area of the body and would have discovered it even without the defendant’s statement. Id. See also Murray, 487 U.S. at 542, 108 S.Ct. 2529 . This court has articulated that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry
B. holding evidence found pursuant to warrant based on probable cause provided by prior illegal entry was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree
C. holding that if the application for a warrant contains probable cause apart from the improper information then the warrant is lawful and the independent source doctrine applies providing that the officers were not prompted to obtain the warrant by what they observed during the initial entry
D. holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry
E. holding that the related independent source rule could potentially apply on remand despite illegal police entry into a warehouse containing marijuana where police had legitimately gained probable cause prior to entry and separately obtained a warrant for entry if the search pursuant to warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.