Acting on an anonymous telephone call, police went to Desmond's apartment, knocked on the door, and demanded to search the apartment for narcotics. When Desmond refused, the police forced the door open and placed him under arrest. As they were removing him from the apartment, Desmond offered to give the officers "valuable information" in exchange for his release. Before he could say anything else, Desmond was given Miranda warnings by the police. Thereafter he told the police that he had stored some heroin in his friend's apartment and that he and his friend had been going to sell it. The heroin was recovered, and Desmond was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics and for possession of narcotics. At his trial, Desmond moved to suppress his statements. Which of the following is Desmond's best argument in support of the motion to suppress?
Desmond is entitled to know the identity of his accuser, and the state cannot supply this information.  The police should have given Desmond Miranda warnings prior to entry into the apartment, and the warnings were ineffectual once Desmond offered to give the police information.  Desmond was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and since the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law.  The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect Desmond's right against selfincrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest