Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and substantive due process claims against the defendants because, on this record, these claims present genuine issues of triable fact. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The plaintiffs may recover their costs from Deputy Mar he alone had the power to transfer ownership. 4 . This statutory provision has been amended and its new provisions became effective on July 1, 2007. 2007 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 191-2007 (H.E.A.1425). The amendments to the statute do not bear on the issues in this case. 5 . The record does not demonstrate whether Mr. Belcher had to use any tools to remove the radio from the van, nor does the record clarify with any certainty how the radio was affixed to the van. However, at his deposi- . ti 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). 8 . The law enforcement immunity provision 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle (B) holding police officers were entitled to immunity where the officers decided not to arrest an intoxicated driver who subsequently died of hypothermia in his vehicle (C) holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity (D) holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search (E) holding that police officers who instructed an intoxicated and unlicensed teenager who was a passenger in a vehicle operated by his intoxicated relative to drive the vehicle home rather than go through the effort of preparing arrest paperwork for the two intoxicated subjects were immune from liability for damages resulting from deaths of two innocent motorists and injuries to another cause by the drunk driving relative
Output (English): holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity