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 
granted, because, if there was no probable cause, the grand jury should not consider the evidence.  granted, because the employee was acting as a police agent and his seizure of the glass without a warrant was unconstitutional.  denied, because motions based on the exclusionary rule are premature in grand jury proceedings.  denied, because the glass was removed from Scott's possession by a private citizen and not a police officer