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.

acted outside their jurisdiction. In sum, none of Pasiewicz’s arguments show that Sandahl and Henning violated the Constitution when they arrested him. They and the other officers (Johnson in particular) certainly could have, and we think should have, proceeded with more caution. They get no commendation ribbons for the way they handled this case. Pasiewicz’s claim against the forest preserve district (even assuming it’s a suable entity) for failure to train or supervise its officers properly regarding the laws of search, seizure, and jurisdiction is a born loser. Because the officers did not violate Pasiewicz’s constitutional rights, he did not suffer constitutional injury. Accordingly, under City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed. 1412 (D.D.C.1983) (<HOLDING>), it is worth pointing out that Ross involved 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that knockandannounce principle is an element of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry because we have little doubt that the framers of the fourth amendment thought that the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure (B) holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment (C) holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment (D) holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment (E) holding that the concept of reasonableness in the fourth amendment logically presupposes an exercise of lawful authority by a police officer
holding that knockandannounce principle is an element of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry because we have little doubt that the framers of the fourth amendment thought that the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure

are reasonably susceptible to two different interpretations, and therefore are ambiguous. See Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Keller Transp., Inc., 382 Mont. 72, 365 P.3d 465, 470 (Mont. 2016). Montana law construes ambiguous provisions “against the insurer and in favor of extending coverage.” Id. We therefore reject United Fire’s argument that the Premises Endorsements limit coverage to incidents that occurred on the St. George premises. Because the Premises Endorsements purport to cover claims “arising out of ... the use of’ the St. George premises, they are sufficiently capacious to include coverage for bodily injury in Montana that flows from or grows out of the use of the St. George premises. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferrin, 311 Mont. 155, 54 P.3d 21, 23 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Thus, United Fire had a duty to defend 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity (B) holding that the phrase arising out of the use is ambiguous and interpreting it as originating from or growing out of or flowing from (C) holding that insurance provisions excluding damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles subject to registration and damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles if the injury or damage occurs away from the insured premises were ambiguous because together they could be read in four different ways (D) holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear (E) holding phrase arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as contained in um policy should be given same interpretation as in automobile liability policies
holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity

file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In order for the county to be liable under § 1983, Frank must show, among other things, either the unconstitutional action of policymakers or an unconstitutional policy or custom. See Johnson v. Moore, 958 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir.1992). The district court correctly determined that Frank failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any official policy or custom governed the alleged conduct and whether Chambers was the final policy maker. See Rhode v. Denson, 776 F.2d 107 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Drain v. Galveston County, 979 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county (B) holding elected constable not the final policymaker and therefore unconstitutional acts of elected county official not chargeable against the county (C) holding county clerk sued in official capacity was entitled to the immunity the county enjoyed (D) holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county (E) holding that an order redistricting a county was merely prospective as to qualifications of county commissioners and did not affect the right to office of those previously elected

holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county