20. Defendant was arrested and charged with distributing controlled substances. As part of its case, the prosecution wanted to show that a large quantity of illegal drugs had beeen stored at a summer cabin owned by defendant. However, at a suppression hearing which preceded the trial, the evidence discovered at the cabin was excluded because no search warrant had been obtained. At trial, defendant took the stand and testified that, while his brother was heavily involved in the drug trade, he was completely innocent of the charges against him. When defendant asked on cross examination if he had ever drugs in his possession, on advice of counsel, he claimed that he was privileged to refuse to answer since it might "tend to incriminate him. Although the judge ordered defendant to answer the prosecution's question, defendant still refused. The prosecution was then permitted to introduce into evidence the drugs which had been illegally seized at defendant's summer home. The prosecution's use of the illegally seized evidence was: A.proper, because it was used to impeach defendant B. Proper, because defendant improperly refused to answer the prosecution's question C. Improper, because the evidence had been suppressed at a pre-trial hearing D. Improper, because defendant's refusal to answer the prosecution's question was on the instructions of his attorney