Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to shooting Milem. He signed the statement at 8:20 p.m. The following morning, Norris was brought before a magistrate for a probable-cause determination. At trial, Norris’s attorney moved to suppress Norris’s confession on two grounds not at issue in this appeal. The Tennessee trial court held a hearing, denied the motion, and admitted the confession. A jury convicted Norris of second-degree murder in June 1999, and he was sentenced to twenty-one years of imprisonment. After the trial, Norris’s new attorney who would also be his appellate counsel moved for a new trial. At a hearing on the motion, he argued that Norris’s confession should have been suppressed because: (1) it was the fruit of an illegal arrest under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) ; and (2) Norris was held for investigative
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statements obtained following an illegal arrest are no less tainted than is physical evidence obtained after the same
B. holding that officers request for defendants name during an illegal entry constituted exploitation of the illegal entry under hall
C. holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment
D. holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda 
E. holding that a confession obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest is not admissible
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.