Some people assert that prosecutors should be allowed to introduce illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials if the judge and jury can be persuaded that the arresting officer was not aware of violating or did not intend to violate the law while seizing the evidence. This proposed "good-faith exception" would weaken everyone’s constitutional protection, lead to less careful police practices, and promote lying by law enforcement officers in court.
The argument above for maintaining the prohibition against illegally obtained evidence assumes that

A．defendants in criminal cases should enjoy greater protection from the law than other citizens do.

B．law enforcement authorities need to be encouraged to pursue criminals assiduously.

C．the legal system will usually find ways to ensure that real crimes do not go unprosecuted.

D．the prohibition now deters some unlawful searches and seizures.

E．(E) courts should consider the motives of law enforcement officers in deciding whether evidence brought forward by the officers is admissible in a trial.

韦某等6人与陈某订立书面合伙协议，共同投资开办一家电动玩具厂(其中，陈某投资18万元人民币，韦某等6人共投资30万元人民币)，在工商部门核准登记的企业性质为合伙，字号为金星电动玩具厂，陈某为执行合伙企业事务的合伙人。实际经营两年后，当地群众向县国税局举报。县国税局稽查局依法检查发现，7人开办电动玩具厂既未办理税务登记，也未申报纳税，并且大量使用非法购买的发票。于是，县国税局稽查局决定令其补税并加收滞纳金，并派人扣押了一批电动玩具。后来，县国税局稽查局又依法定程序对其作出罚款的决定。韦某等6人认为补缴税款、接受罚款即可，不同意复议或起诉。但陈某不服，认为主管国税分局未尽有关通知义务，县国税局稽查局补税决定无事实根据，并且认为，稽查局无权罚款。

若本案税务机关查处的不是合伙企业，而是某中德合资电动玩具公司，那么，外方股东认为税务具体行政行为违法，( )。

A．侵犯合资企业合法权益的，可以外方股东的名义起诉

B．侵犯合资企业合法权益的，只能以合资企业的名义起诉

C．侵犯合资企业合法权益的，只能以中方的名义起诉

D．侵犯自己一方合法权益的，可以外方股东的名义起诉

E．侵犯自己一方合法权益的，必须以合资企业的名义起诉