Aware that drug dealers were using private shipping companies to send drugs throughout the United States, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency developed a policy whereby agents sought help from those shipping companies. After being requested to do so by the DEA, Shipping Co. management agreed to hold suspicious packages for further inspection before delivering them. Employee detained a package addressed to Defendant when Employee noticed leaking talcum powder, often used to mask the smell of marijuana. Upon opening it, Employee discovered three pounds of marijuana. Employee contacted Officer, who arranged to do a controlled delivery of the package. After receiving the package, Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on the motion to suppress? Group of answer choices The cooperation between the private company and the DEA makes the Fourth Amendment applicable to this case. But Employee's opening of the package, based on probable cause, was lawful because of the mobility of the package. The cooperation between the private company and the DEA makes the Fourth Amendment applicable to this case. As a result, Employee's opening of the package was an illegal search because no warrant was obtained. The court should grant the motion. Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the search was conducted by a private citizen. The court should deny the motion. The cooperation between the private company and the DEA makes the Fourth Amendment applicable to this case. Employee's detention of the package without a warrant was an unlawful seizure. The court should grant the motion