A mechanic and his former employee were indicted for automobile theft. Unbeknownst to the mechanic, the former employee confessed to the crime and implicated his employer. In exchange for favorable treatment by the prosecutor, the former employee agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of the mechanic. The police were also investigating the mechanic for an alleged plan to kill another person who was to serve as a witness for the state at the mechanic's trial. The mechanic sought a meeting with the former employee. Upon learning of the proposed meeting, the police wired the former employee in order to record the conversation between the mechanic and the former employee. The police directed the former employee to encourage the mechanic to talk about his criminal activity. At the meeting the mechanic made incriminating statements about stealing automobiles. The mechanic's lawyer filed a pretrial motion to suppress these statements on the grounds that his client's right to counsel was violated. Should the court grant this motion?

A. No, because the statements were obtained by police during an investigation of a possible crime, a plan to murder a witness, for which the right to counsel had not attached.

B. No, because the mechanic initiated the meeting with his former employee.

C. Yes, because the police knowingly used the former employee to elicit incriminating statements from the mechanic about the charged crime.

D. Yes, because the police used a secret agent to obtain the incriminating statements.