Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence so obtained.” Id. at 1518. The Court, however, also held that, as between a wife’s consent to a search of the family residence and her husband’s refusal to consent, "a physically present co-occupant’s stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him.” Id. at 1519. Comments, Model Civ. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 9.13 (2007). 13 . See also Cal. Penal Code § 3067(d) (in the context of parole searches, noting "[i]t is not the intent of the Legislature to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct searches for the sole purpose of harassment.”). 14 . But see Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 650-52, 657, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Gibson v. Cty. of Washoe, Nev., 290 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity (B) holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional (C) recognizing a claim for civil liability against municipalities  under  1983 (D) holding individual officers entitlement to qualified immunity does not immunize municipalities from monell liability (E) holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit
Output (English): holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity