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 Q]: 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 A]: (E)

[EX Q]: Court of Utah, in applying the good-faith exception to a Belton search, recently cautioned: "If the case law had been ambiguous prior to the time the officers conducted a search later definitively declared unconstitutional, the good-faith exception would not apply and the evidence would be excluded.” Utah v. Baker, 229 P.3d 650, 664 (Utah 2010). 80 . See Belton, supra note 1, 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860. 81 . Compare Thornton, supra note 59, 541 U.S. at 622, 124 S.Ct. 2127 (declining to address argument that Belton rule applies only to “recent occupants” of vehicle, while noting that petitioner had conceded "he was in ‘close proximity, both temporally and spatially,’ to his vehicle” when approached by police officer) with Lewis v. United States, 632 A.2d 383, 388-89 (D.C.1993) (<HOLDING>). 82 . See Gant, supra note 2, 129 S.Ct. at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest (B) holding warrantless search of vehicle was improper where car was not stopped on a highway but was parked at a residence with no occupants inside or near the vehicle and capable of being driven away by the turn of an ignition key (C) holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle (D) holding belton did not extend to search of vehicle incident to arrest of individual who has parked locked and walked fifteen to twenty feet away from an automobile before being stopped and arrested (E) holding that belton permits the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile even when the defendant is arrested outside as long as the officer made initial contact while the defendant was inside the automobile
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: The evidence was also found by the family court to be sufficient to support an order on January 29, 2008, enjoining Lisa from allowing Byles to be around L.S. “until further order of the court.” I would hold that the trial court erred in finding that Jesus was not immune from liability for defamation for his statements under Family Code section 261.106. I would further hold that the trial court erred in not hearing the jurisdictional facts pertinent to Jesus’s immunity defense before proceeding to trial on the merits of Byles’s defamation suit and entering judgment on Byles’s claim rather than dismissing Byles’s suit for lack of jurisdiction due to Byles’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 223; see also Brown, 13 S.W. at 472-73 (<HOLDING>); Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability (B) holding that an individual who is not served cannot be at fault or negligent in allowing a default judgment to be rendered (C) holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981 (D) holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable (E) holding that it was error to dismiss complaint against individual defendants who had acted as agents of corporate trustee who could be held personally liable
[EX A]:
(D)