human
Question: Suspecting that Scott had slain his wife, police detectives persuaded one of Scott's employees to remove a drinking glass from Scott's office so that it could be used for fingerprint comparisons with a knife found near the body. The fingerprints matched. The prosecutor announced that he would present comparisons and evidence to the grand jury. Scott's lawyer immediately filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the fingerprint comparisons to bar its consideration by the grand jury, contending that the evidence was illegally acquired. The motion should be

Choices:
A) granted, because, if there was no probable cause, the grand jury should not consider the evidence.
B) granted, because the employee was acting as a police agent and his seizure of the glass without a warrant was unconstitutional.
C) denied, because motions based on the exclusionary rule are premature in grand jury proceedings.
D) denied, because the glass was removed from Scott's possession by a private citizen and not a police officer
gpt
The correct answer is 2: denied, because motions based on the exclusionary rule are premature in grand jury proceedings..