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.
--------
Question: of the statute, the FDA’s regulations, the FDA’s internal interpretation, and precedent all demonstrate that a sterilizer for dental hand-pieces is a “device” as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. § 321(h). That being so, both SteriSafe and its accessory SteriDot are within the jurisdiction of the FFDCA. Defendant nevertheless posits three reasons why SteriSafe and SteriDot are not devices. First, defendant argues that the government failed to prove that dental handpieces transmit disease and, thus, that SteriSafe actually prevents disease. Such proof is not required. Congress had two purposes in enacting' the FFDCA: (1) to regulate products that actually prevent disease, and (2) to regulate products that falsely claim that they prevent disease. Because of those d 1006 (9th Cir.1952) (<HOLDING>). Defendant next argues that the Steri-Safe is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the doctor who submitted an expert report did not demonstrate knowledge of cancer treatment he was not qualified to offer an opinion that an earlier diagnosis could have produced a better outcome for the plaintiff (B) holding that a machine that allegedly eliminated lumps from womens breasts was governed by the ffdca even though expert witnesses expressed the unanimous belief that appellants instruments are useless for diagnosis or treatment of any human ailment (C) holding the expert witnesses were protected by witness immunity to ensure expert objectivity (D) holding in a case where there was no evidence that the expert was incompetent or that the petitioners lawyers had any reason to question the experts professional qualifications that it was objectively reasonable for  trial counsel to rely upon the experts diagnosis (E) holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law

Answer: (B)


Question: limits in which the officer is empowered to act, when a report has previously been made that the vehicle has been stolen or a complaint has been filed and a warrant thereon issued charging that the vehicle has been embezzled.” Reading the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Faulk possessed the authority to impound the motorcycle based on the stolen vehicle report. A stolen vehicle report was made, which may give Officer Faulk the authority to impound the motorcycle without a warrant. However, Officer Faulk’s declaration shows that he was aware that the allegedly stolen vehicle was part of a contract dispute between private parties. See Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 238 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The fact that Officer Faulk knew that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a dispute regarding payment of a restaurant bill does not give rise to probable cause to arrest (B) holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint (C) holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute (D) holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause (E) holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution

Answer: (C)


Question: the Tenth Circuit held that an unlawful search took place when officers felt the sides of luggage in the overhead racks of a bus without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or consent. See Nicholson, 144 F.3d at 638-39. While it acknowledged that luggage placed in the overhead racks of a commercial bus was subject to some intrusions, the court emphasized that “[t]he degree of intrusion is the determining factor as to whether an officer’s contact with the exterior of luggage constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 639. The court found that the officer’s manipulation went beyond the degree of intrusion that a passenger would reasonably expect his bag to encounter from other passengers. See id. But see United States v. Bond, 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>), petition, for cert, filed, No. 98-9349 (U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search (B) holding that feel ing and squeezing exterior of luggage in overhead compartment of bus is not a search under the fourth amendment (C) recognizing that permissive search of car compartment incident to arrest is based on the fact that compartment is within reach of the arrestee (D) holding that a dog sniff of the exterior of luggage in a public airport does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment (E) holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not

Answer:
(B)