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.

Ex Input:
rely on a warrant to search a house where the warrant affidavit stated that there was marijuana growing near the house and that there was a road from the house to the marijuana). Of course, the information in the affidavit does not eliminate the possibility that the marijuana came from somewhere else. The affidavit states that the trash was found at the end of a lane that dumped out into a rural highway. Admittedly, the trash could have been flung out the window of a passing car, or it could have fallen off the back of a garbage truck. However, when it comes to probable cause, the name says it all; certainty is never required, only a fair probability. When the issue is one of good-faith reliance, even less is necessary. See United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The affidavit must simply bear some indicia 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists (B) holding that plaintiff was required to plead and prove the absence of probable cause to support his bivens claim (C) holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity (D) holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question (E) holding that leon requires a less demanding showing than the substantial basis threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause in the first place

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
to the poisonous tree”) (quoting Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d at 1117). To be able to object to the police conducting an illicit protective sweep of the Gonzalez residence, Defendant would have to have some basis to claim that the sweep violated his rights. He does not. We conclude, therefore, that his subsequent detention was lawful. 2. Defendant’s detention occurred after the police had conducted the sweep of Gonzalez’s residence, and only an individual with a legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence could object to the sweep. After entering the garage, officers acted reasonably in detaining Defendant when they caught him red handed with large quantities of marijuana, cuttings tools, and scales in plain sight. See United States v. Turner, 553 F.3d 1337, 1344 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). We reject any contention that the officers 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the standard of probable cause applies to all arrests without the need to balance the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations thus an officer may without violating the fourth amendment arrest an offender if probable cause exists to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence (B) holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it (C) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment (D) holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed (E) holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed

Ex Output:
(D)


Ex Input:
at that time to discover facts that would lead to the discovery of the present claim. Through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, Dulude should have discovered the nature of the defamation claim before April 17, 1995. Her claim, therefore, is time-barred. Dulude also maintains that the defamatory statements were repeated to á fellow nurse on their unit and that she could not have discovered such defamatory statements until the nurse’s deposition on May 18,1999. On that date, the nurse testified that she learned of the reason for Dulude’s termination “from what was said on the unit.” We find that such rumors regarding Dulude’s termination are insufficient to establish a claim of defamation against FAHC. See Szot v. Allstate Ins. Co., 161 F. Supp. 2d 596, 607-09 (D. Md. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Elicier v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employee who claims to have been terminated by her employer for having exercised her right to disability benefits raised a cognizable claim under  510 of erisa notwithstanding the fact that she received the benefits from her employer prior to termination (B) holding that failure to follow gaap without more is insufficient to establish scienter (C) holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict (D) holding that references to the rumor mill created by the plaintiffs former peers sheer speculation as to the grounds for her termination without more is insufficient to establish a claim of defamation against employer (E) holding speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment

Ex Output:

(D)