Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): was not “otherwise privileged.” Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91, 97 (2d Cir.1991). If probable cause for the arrest existed at the time of arrest, the confinement is privileged. Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128, 135 (2d Cir.2003). “Probable cause ‘exists when [one] ha[s] knowledge of, or reasonably trustworthy information as to, facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested.’ ” Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71, 79 (2d Cir.2008) (quoting Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344, 368 (2d Cir.2007)). As in this case, a mistaken identity can provide the basis for probable cause. Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 802-03, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971) (<HOLDING>). If officers arrest an individual based on a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police officers have probable cause to arrest an individual with a sufficiently similar appearance to the description in a warrant (B) holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within (C) holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense (D) holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest (E) holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry
Output (English): holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense