A confidential informant told a detective that a defendant had an active gambling and loan-sharking business. The informant said he knew that the defendant laundered money from illegal activities through his restaurant, but that no incriminating records were kept there. Rather, the defendant kept the records at his home, and transported them each Wednesday afternoon to a safe-deposit box. The detective set up a surveillance outside the defendant's house, and over the course of two weeks, saw heavy traffic going in and out, with particularly heavy traffic on Friday and Saturday-the days before college and professional football games. The detective applied for and received a search warrant for the defendant's house and car. One team of officers executed the search warrant on the defendant's home, and another team searched his car. They found nothing in the car, but after a long search of the house, they uncovered numerous incriminating records. The detective immediately called a magistrate and obtained an arrest warrant for the defendant, which officers executed at his restaurant. When executing that warrant, the officers found the defendant inside his office at his desk. They arrested him and searched the area, finding a handgun with illegal hollow point bullets. They also searched the restaurant's catering van and found more gambling records. The defendant now moves to suppress the bullets. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the bullets? Inadmissible, because t