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.

[EX Q]: States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). The Supreme Court has recognized that “searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). However, the Supreme Court has permitted exceptions to the warrant requirement when “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment) (allowing school officials to conduct warrantless searches of student property without probable cause); see also O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable (B) holding neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause requirement should apply to noninvestigatory workrelated purposes or for investigations of workrelated misconduct  (C) holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence (D) holding  1983 action lies for warrantless arrest without probable cause (E) holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause
[EX A]: holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable

[EX Q]: before section 362(b)(3) can come into play. An act that both creates and perfects a lien postpetition cannot so qualify. See, e.g., Louisville & Jefferson County Metro. Sewer Dist. v. Excel Eng’g, Inc. (In re Excel Eng’g, Inc.), 224 B.R. 582, 589-90 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.1998) (refusing to recognize validity of postpetition creation and perfection of mechanic’s hen because creditor had no lien at the time debtor filed for bankruptcy); Water-vliet Paper Co. v. City of Watervliet (In re Shoreham Paper Co.), 117 B.R. 274, 281-83 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.1990) (finding postpe-tition creation and perfection of property tax lien barred by automatic stay because no prepetition interest existed); Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y v. Ballentine Bros. (In re Ballentine Bros.), 86 B.R. 198, 201 (Bankr. D.Neb.1988) (<HOLDING>); North Side Lumber Co. v. Indus. Indem. Co. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the automatic stay barred a suit for injunctive relief to prevent postpetition antitrust violations (B) holding that the automatic stay would be modified so that a credit union could seek payment of postpetition interest from the codebtor (C) holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void (D) holding that creditors failure to voluntarily turn over property lawfully seized prepetition constituted violation of automatic stay (E) holding that creation of a postpetition tax levy based on a prepetition assessment was barred by the automatic stay
[EX A]: holding that the automatic stay barred a suit for injunctive relief to prevent postpetition antitrust violations

[EX Q]: years. At the time that this statute was amended and New Jersey’s death penalty legislation was enacted, both effective August 6, 1982, the Legislature and the Governor expressly stated that N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3b provided for mandatory minimum sentences for all convicted murderers not sentenced to death. New Jersey courts have consistently held that N.J.S.A 2C:11-3b imposes a thirty-year mandatory minimum sentence on non-capital murderers. In State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 524 A.2d 188 (1987), the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the statute required the imposition of a mandatory minimum term of thirty years in the absence of a death sentence. Id. at 154-55, 524 A.2d 188. That position has been reaffirmed in numerous cases. See State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481, 511, 651 A.2d 19 (1994) (<HOLDING>); accord State v. Dunne, 124 N.J. 303, 320, 590 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a term of imprisonment begins at the time a prisoner is sentenced (B) holding that a defendant found guilty of murder not by his own conduct is subject to imprisonment of at least a thirtyyear mandatory term (C) holding that when the defendant was misadvised when entering his guilty plea that he would not have to serve a mandatory parole term following his release from prison fundamental fairness required limiting the term of his sentence to that which comported with the plea bargain (D) holding that   3584a allows the district judge to specify the sequence of service of terms of imprisonment only when sentences are imposed at the same time or the other sentence is an undischarged term of imprisonment to which the defendant is already subject  (E) holding that the statute is mandatory
[EX A]:
holding that a term of imprisonment begins at the time a prisoner is sentenced