In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: aff'd, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1171, 117 S.Ct. 1438, 137 L.Ed.2d 545 (1997), quoting Ex parte Wilson, 571 So.2d 1251, 1261 (Ala.1990). In Brooks v. State, 695 So.2d 176 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 695 So.2d 184 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 893, 118 S.Ct. 233, 139 L.Ed.2d 164 (1997), this Court stated: “[A] prosecutor has the right to indicate to the jury those parts of the evidence or testimony presented by the State that the defense has failed to contradict; that process is not an infringement of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Duncan v. Stynchcombe, 704 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (11th Cir.1983); Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993); Griffin v. State, 393 So.2d 523, 528 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).” 695 So.2d at 180 (<HOLDING>). “ ‘ “A prosecutor’s statement that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence (B) recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence (C) holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify (D) holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense (E) holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence
[A]: holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence


[Q]: L.Ed.2d at 1035-86). Unfortunately, the adjective "readily" is subject to differing interpretations, and there has been disagreement regarding the meaning of "readily mobile." Decisions of the Indiana Court of Appeals are not consistent regarding whether automobiles under police observation or control are readily mobile so as to be subject to warrantless search under the automobile exception. E.g., compare, v. State, T5 N.E.2d 1207, 1211 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (legally parked automobile surrounded by police officers held not inherently mobile to qualify for automobile exeeption), transfer denied, and Edwards v. State, 768 N.E.2d 506, 508-09 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (impounded vehicle no longer "inherently mobile"), trams. not sought, with Johnson v. State, 766 N.E2d 426, 483 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (<HOLDING>), trans. demied, and Justice v. State, 765 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver (B) holding that ready mobility existed when a car was capable of being driven even after the driver was arrested and despite the absence of other potential drivers (C) holding that ocga  40520 as safeharbor provision requires a defendant to produce a drivers license that was valid at the time the vehicle was being driven (D) holding warrantless search of vehicle was improper where car was not stopped on a highway but was parked at a residence with no occupants inside or near the vehicle and capable of being driven away by the turn of an ignition key (E) holding detention lawful when police referred driver to secondary to check ownership of the vehicle after the driver admitted that the car did not belong to him and the registration revealed that the car was owned by another
[A]: holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver


[Q]: 1999 that she needed surgery. (See PL’s Am. Compl. ¶ 15; PL’s Opp’n at 42, 43.) It is undisputed that, “at various times, [Porter and plaintiff] talked about [their] back problems.” (Walfoort Deck, Ex. 6 at 233). It is also undisputed that Porter “was aware that [plaintiff] periodically had pains” and knew that Amtrak provided her with an oversized chair. (Id. at 233-234.) Yet that is the only evidence — other than her own conclusory statements — that plaintiff advances to demonstrate that Amtrak regarded her as being disabled. She d 1089 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 140 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir.1998) (same); Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir.1996) (same); Simonson v. Trinity Reg’l Health Sys., 336 F.3d 706, 709 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Benoit v. Technical Mfg. Corp., 331 F.3d 166, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled (B) holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled (C) holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation (D) holding that an employers awareness of plaintiffs past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled (E) holding that evidence that defendant provided plaintiff with certain accommodations for her condition was insufficient to establish that defendant regarded her as disabled for purposes of ada absent showing that the defendant maintained any misperceptions about her condition
[A]:
holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled