TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Therefore, the magistrate could not have relied on such information when making the probable cause determination. [¶ 23] When Utvick’s room was searched on June 1, 2002, the officer observed persons in the room attempting to dispose of drugs by flushing in the bathroom, after executing a search warrant without a no-knock provision. While Ut-vick is not alleged to have engaged in this activity, Utvick was the registered guest of the hotel room and was in the company of persons suspected of disposing of evidence. Prior history of destruction of evidence, when detailed in an affidavit for a no-knock search warrant, is not a threshold requirement but may strengthen probable cause to believe evidence will be destroyed. Cf. Mazepink v. Arkansas, 336 Ark. 171, 987 S.W.2d 648, 655 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Henderson, 629 N.W.2d at 624 (holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant (B) holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant (C) holding noknock search warrant unreasonable because no exigent circumstances existed and noting moreover there was no evidence  the occupants may have attempted to destroy the evidence  by flushing it down the toilet (D) holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant (E) holding no liability existed under the circumstances

SOLUTION: holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant

PROBLEM: an intention that suits for pension benefits by disappointed applicants are equitable.”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112, 101 S.Ct. 922, 66 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); see also Sullivan v. LTV Aerospace and Defense Co., 82 F.3d 1251, 1258-59 (2d Cir.1996); Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1007 (4th Cir.985); Turner v. CF & I Steel Corp., 770 F.2d 43, 47 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058, 106 S.Ct. 800, 88 L.Ed.2d 776 (1986); In re Vorpahl, 695 F,2d 318, 321-22 (8th Cir.1982); Calamia v. Spivey, 632 F.2d 1235, 1237 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980). Some district courts have suggested that Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), calls these holdings into doubt. See, e.g., Hulcher v. United Behavioral Sys., 919 F.Supp. 879, 885 (E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>); Vaughn v. Owen Steel Co., 871 F.Supp. 247, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that  1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under  1132a3 is thus not appropriate (B) holding plaintiff had no claim under  1132a3 because his grievance that benefits were denied is specifically addressed in  1132a1b (C) holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances (D) holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan (E) holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under  1132a1b

SOLUTION: holding that  1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under  1132a3 is thus not appropriate

PROBLEM: from the “striking” similarities between the works. Id. This rule only applies, however, where “as a matter of logic, the only explanation [for the similarities] between the two works must be ‘copying rather than ... coincidence, independent creation, or prior common source.’ ” 4-13 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.02[B] (2009) (citations omitted). Conversely, under the “inverse ratio rule” recognized by the Ninth Circuit, courts “require a lower standard of proof of substantial similarity when a high degree of access is shown.” Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 485. To benefit from this rule, Plaintiff must offer proof of access which is greater than or “more compelling than that which is offered in the usual copyright case.” Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1176 (C.D.Cal.2001) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). Conversely, where 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because literary works including compilations and derivative works are within the subject matter of copyright state common law that purported to protect a work for which plaintiffs copyright action was unsuccessful was preempted (B) holding that repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works even without direct economic benefit is sufficient for a court to find commercial use (C) holding that younger abstention was appropriate while the case works its way through the state appellate process (D) holding that the inverse ratio rule did not apply because the general unavailability of plaintiffs works es pecially those that were unpublished other than by way of their alleged 1994 and 1995 submissions to defendants makes access to plaintiffs copyrighted works somewhat less than might be available in a large number of cases (E) holding that the plaintiffs allowance of customers to create derivative works for noncommercial purposes did not impliedly license commercial competition

SOLUTION:
holding that because literary works including compilations and derivative works are within the subject matter of copyright state common law that purported to protect a work for which plaintiffs copyright action was unsuccessful was preempted