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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: of his experience’ in detecting criminal activity”) (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). Based on the totality of these circumstances, we conclude that the officers possessed the reasonable suspicion necessary to effect an investigative detention of Mr. Hishaw as he left the apartment in the pickup. Even though the initial stop was justified, we must still assess the reasonableness of the subsequent pat-down search. In order to comport with the Fourth Amendment, that search must have been “reasonably related in scope” to the basis for the stop (i.e., the officers’ suspicion that Mr. Hishaw was distributing drugs). See Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868. In that regard, this circuit has concluded that an 169 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Perrin, 45 F.3d 869, 873 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is permissible for an officer to order the occupants out of a vehicle during a lawful stop (B) holding that like burglary car theft is a crime that often involves the use of weapons and other instruments of assault that could jeopardize police officer safety and thus justifies a protective frisk under terry to ensure officer safety (C) holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes (D) holding that when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are in the vehicle the officer may in the absence of factors allaying his safety concerns order the occupants out of the vehicle and pat them down briefly for weapons to ensure the officers safety and the safety of others (E) holding that the officer had reasonable belief that the occupants of the vehicle were armed where the officer knew that drug dealers are frequently armed and therefore frisk of the vehicle was permissible
[A]: (D)


[Q]: the question of competency of counsel. Balanced against this is the possibility, in most instances quite l’emote, that an experienced member of the public defender’s staff might labor under a conflict of interest because another member of the staff was so burdened. People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147, 37 Ill.Dec. 267, 402 N.E.2d 157, 162 (1979). These two considerations outweigh any possible chilling effect on attorney client relationships at OPD. See also, Bolin v. State, 137 P.3d 136, 145 (Wyo.2006) (stating that, although conflicts involving associates at a private firm are imputed to entire firm, public defenders office “warrants slightly different treatment[,]” and adopting a ease by case analysis); cf. People v. Daniels, 52 Cal.3d 815, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906, 915 (1990) (<HOLDING>); People v. Banks, 121 Ill.2d 36, 117 Ill.Dec. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public (B) holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice (C) holding designated counsel acting on behalf of the office of public defender in law guardian program to be public employees for purpose of the new jersey tort claims act njsa 5911 to 123 and therefore entitled to indemnification by the state (D) holding that public defender did not face conflict requiring withdrawal when bringing collateral attack of a defendants conviction public defender was required to attack competence of previous public defender and stating that automatic disqualification  would hamper the ability of public defenders offices to represent indigents in criminal cases (E) holding a federal public defender is not a federal officer for purposes of a bivenstype action
[A]: (D)


[Q]: not have occurred. Any negligence on the part of these third parties may not be imputed to the Greene County defendants. Therefore, even if the Greene County defendants were negligent in allowing the horses to compete in the pull, they may not be held liable for any harm caused when the horses escaped from the control of third parties. Herman, 535 A.2d at 1255 (emphasis added). In short, this precedent establishes that the animal exception to governmental immunity does not apply except where the animal is in the direct control of the governmental agency. Further, this Court has explained the meaning of “control” in the context of other exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in the Judicial Code. See Walters v. Department of Transportation, 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 478, 474 A.2d 66, 67 (1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Giovannitti v. Department of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding motorist entitled to hearing before taking his license under statute that required loss of license if uninsured driver involved in an accident (B) holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer (C) holding that department of transportation did not have control of motorists drivers license because although the department of transportation may have had a duty to recall the motorists license this authority to revoke does not involve physical possession or actual control sufficient to bring the license within the ambit of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity (D) holding that officers may question motorists about their license registration and travel plans (E) holding that department of transportation did not have control over an uninsured motorists vehicle as intended by the personal property exception to sovereign immunity where it failed to physically obtain custody of motorists drivers license and allowed him to possess a license plate
[A]:
(E)