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.

in the context of an election case, even in the absence of a class action, and concluding that the case was not moot); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 756 n. 5, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973) (concluding that plaintiffs’ class action challenge to New York’s Election Law was capable of repetition yet evading review, although primary election had passed and the petitioners would be eligible to vote in the next primary); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 333 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972) (in challenge to a provision of Tennessee’s election law, concluding that, although plaintiff would be eligible to vote in the next election, the controversy was capable of repetition yet evading review); Fulani v. League of Women Voters Educ. Fund, 882 F.2d 621, 628 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We adopt the approach of the former cases, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that appeal was not moot despite the fact that the election had passed because there would be every reason to expect the same parties to generate a similar future controversy emphasis added (B) holding that although the 1972 election had long since passed the case was not moot because the statute under review would apply to other candidates in the future (C) holding that election case was not moot after election because there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining parties would be subject to that same action in the future (D) holding that issues as to whether declaratory relief should be granted had become moot and would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but that under hallman the entire appeal was not moot because there still was a live controversy as to whether appellee was entitled to recover attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act and therefore issues regarding attorneys fees were not moot and would be decided (E) holding that plaintiffs claims were not moot although the election was over because the same issues would affect minorparty candidacies in the future but failing to address whether fulani herself would be affected
holding that appeal was not moot despite the fact that the election had passed because there would be every reason to expect the same parties to generate a similar future controversy emphasis added

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
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

of an agency’s action, inquiring whether the agency has “(1) impose[d] any rights and obligations, or (2) genuinely [left] the agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise discretion.” CropLife Am. v. EPA, 329 F.3d 876, 883 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The language used by an agency is an important consideration in such determinations. See Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Young, 818 F.2d 943, 946 (D.C.Cir.1987 F.2d 33, 38, 48 (D.C.Cir.1974) (noting that a policy statement that “does not establish a binding norm,” and “is not finally determinative of the issues or rights to which it is addressed,” is not subject to review) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), with Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. v. Browner, 215 F.3d 45, 47-49 (D.C.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the distinction between 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that certain dual purpose documents created in response to the epa information request and consent order were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as they were created because of potential litigation with the epa (B) holding that epa regions policy statement does not constitute final agency action because it does not compel action (C) holding inter alia that an epa guidance which created new reporting requirements for regulated entities as a directive with legal consequences amounted to final agency action (D) holding that epa action initiating permitting proceedings was not final agency action (E) holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted

holding that certain dual purpose documents created in response to the epa information request and consent order were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as they were created because of potential litigation with the epa