Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

related to the illegal search. Without the information gained by the illegal GPS tracking, Hutti would not have known where to find Lee, when to find him there, or that he should "develop" probable cause to stop him. As a result, the seatbelt violation was not a "new, distinct crime" that could establish attenuation. Id. (quoting United States v. Castillo, 238 F.3d 424, 2000 WL 1800481, at *6 (6th Cir.2000) (unpublished table decision)). In its objections, the United States also raises the possibility that the dog searches and Lee's confession could be intervening circumstances. R. 34 at 4. Those events could, in some contexts, sever the chain of causation stemming from an illegal search. See, e.g., United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 279, 98 S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 491,
Holding statements: (A) holding that hospitalization of witnesss wife and his desire to be by her side was not a substantial basis for admitting witnesss testimony from first trial (B) holding that a videotaped interview between the child and an investigator was admissible (C) holding that taking an individual who was not suspected of any crime to a police station and into an interview room and detaining her for approximately four hours where it was made clear she was not free to leave violated the fourth amendment (D) holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility (E) holding a witnesss testimony admissible because it derived from a police interview of her and was in no way connected to an illegal search of the defendants business four months earlier
(E)