1. After an extensive undercover investigation involving a "sting" operation, police obtained a warrant to search the home (including any computers) of Petra Santos for evidence of her involvement in international money laundering. They arrived at her house and entered immediately through an unlocked back door. When Santos came downstairs in response to the noise, she was served with the warrant. The search of her home computer found extensive records of deposits and withdrawals in foreign bank accounts. Defense counsel has filed a motion to suppress everything found in the search, arguing that the police failed to follow the knock-and-announce rule mandated by the Fourth Amendment. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress?

(A) The motion to suppress should be granted because the judge issuing the search warrant did not authorize a no-knock entry, and therefore the police violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.

(B) The motion to suppress should be denied because, even though the police violated the

defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by failing to knock and announce their presence, the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid search warrant and the exclusionary rule does not apply to a violation of the knock and announce rule.

(C) The motion to suppress should be granted because there was no exigency to justify the no-knock entry.

(D) The motion to suppress should be denied because the Fourth Amendment does not require police to knock and announce themselves and wait before entering to execute a valid search warrant.