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.
--------
Question: has recently held that a police officer may order passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop without violating the passengers’ Fourth Amendment rights. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997). The Court reasoned that the public interest in protecting an officer’s safety outweighed the minimal intrusion involved in requiring passengers to exit the vehicle. See id. at 413-15, 117 S.Ct. 882. The same rationale applies here. An officer may reasonably conclude that his safety is best protected by having the passengers remain in the vehicle. Further, the intrusion involved with having passengers remain in their vehicle is de minimis — the officer is merely maintaining the status quo. See United States v. Moorefield, 111 F.3d 10, 11 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Defendant Garner refused to comply with 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop (B) holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop (C) holding that police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop (D) holding police officers making a traffic stop could order passengers out of the stopped car (E) holding that an officer may order a passenger out of a vehicle during a stop for a traffic infraction

Answer: holding that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to exit the car pending completion of the stop


Question: created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference ... by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts'were occurring. Id. at 127 (citing Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995)). The Supreme Court’s decision in Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, which found that a supervisor can be held liable only "through the official’s own individual actions,” id. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, arguably casts doubt on the continued viability of some of the categories set forth in Hastings On Hudson and Colon. See Grullon, 720 F.3d at 139 (<HOLDING>). For the purposes of this case, however, it is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the same with respect to an apartment (B) holding that no heightened showing is required (C) holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment (D) recognizing that opinion work product subject to discovery upon heightened showing of compelling need (E) recognizing chat iqbal may have heightened the requirements for showing a supervisors personal involvement with respect to certain constitutional violations

Answer: holding the same with respect to an apartment


Question: is expressly so despite the statutory authority of any federal agency “to sue and be sued.” See Bor-Son Bldg. Corp. v. Heller, 572 F.2d 174, 177 (8th Cir. 1978) (12 U.S.C. § 1702); Freeling v. FDIC, 221 F.Supp. 955, 956-57 (W.D.Okla.1962), aff’d on basis of district court’s opinion, 326 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1963). In Bor-Son Building Corp. v. Heller, 572 F.2d 174 (8th Cir. 1978), this court reasoned that the FTCA is the exclusive remedy if: (1) the suit is against a federal agency; and (2) the suit sounds in tort. 572 F.2d at 177. The instant case meets both requirements. First, it is not disputed that the SBA is a “federal agency” within the meaning of section 2671 of the FTCA. 15 U.S.C. § 633; see also SBA v. McClellan, 364 U.S. 446, 448-50, 81 S.Ct. 191, 194, 5 L.Ed.2d 200 (1960) (<HOLDING>). Second, it should be readily apparent that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a sole proprietorship was not a separate legal entity capable of being sued under ohio law (B) holding that a tree is part of a public facility if a public entity incorporates it into a facility in such a manner that it 1 becomes an integral part of the facility and 2 is essential for the intended use of the facility (C) holding sba is an integral part of federal government and is not a separate legal entity (D) holding that a formal report is not required when determining causation is an integral part of treating a patient (E) holding that an unincorporated association is a legal entity and therefore can own property

Answer:
holding that a sole proprietorship was not a separate legal entity capable of being sued under ohio law