Put your thinking cap on$.$ Does the following scenario depict an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine?

One team of officers seizes a piece of evidence illegally. Unbeknownst to this team of officers, another group of officers has already obtained, but not yet executed, a lawful search warrant for that same evidence. Even if the initial illegal seizure had never taken place, the evidence would still have come into the hands of the government lawfully from an independent source $($the executed warrant$).$ Therefore, the evidence should be admissible in the defendant's criminal trial.

A$.$

Yes, it is an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because there are at least two teams involved in seizing the evidence.

B$.$

No$,$ it is not an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because once the evidence has been seized illegally, it may not be seized again.

C$.$

Yes, it is an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because the government has a lawful source for the evidence that is not tainted or causally connected to the initial illegal search.

D$.$

No$,$ it is not an accurate statement of the independent source doctrine because the two teams of officers have worked together to seize the evidence.