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: County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Ban zure beyond its lawful duration, such theft violates the Fourth Amendment. See Nelson v. Streeter, 16 F.3d 145, 151 (7th Cir.1994). The remaining question is whether Colaprete’s Fourth Amendment right against having his property converted following a search was clearly established when the alleged conversion occurred. The Seventh Circuit has held that the existence of this right is “[s]o obvious ... that we do not think the absence of case law can establish a defense of immunity.” Id. We respectfully disagree. This court has never applied the Fourth Amendment in this manner, and Supreme Court precedent tilts slightly against the existence of any constitutional right against theft during the course of a search. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533(<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has held that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional (B) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (C) holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists (D) holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies (E) holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy

SOLUTION: holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional

PROBLEM: Law. 11-12 (Nov. 1994) ("The side with the best case almost always wins, and the performance of the lawyers almost never matters. Some of the best lawyering I've ever seen has resulted in spectacular losses. And some of the most bumbling lawyers have had the fortune of attaching themselves to strong, and therefore winning, cases."). 50 . See Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Snyder, 368 Md. 242, 793 A.2d 515, 531 (2002) (finding that attorney's failure to research whether his client, a criminal defendant, needed to be present at her initial appearance, as well as his failure to have her arrest warrant recalled once he learned of its issuance, provided sufficient evidence that he had violated MRPC 1.1); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 753 A.2d 17, 26-27 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 51 . Stip. Ex. 26 at Beecher00203. 52 . See 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client (B) holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case (C) holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client (D) holding that an attorney whose office staff incorrectly instructed a client that he need not appear in court for trial provided incompetent representation (E) holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client

SOLUTION: holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client

PROBLEM: Morgan had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he voluntarily displayed his cell-phone screen in the presence of the detectives. Morgan had his phone because he asked for it. He did not object when the detective observed his activities. And—according to the detective’s uncontested testimony—Morgan spontaneously shared information about his contacts with the detective. This is unlike officers looking on their own through the contents of a cell phone. See Riley v. California, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2480-82, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). Instead, it is “an officer’s mere observation of an item left in plain view,” which “generally involves no Fourth Amendment search.” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738 n.4, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983). See Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 32, 121 S.Ct. 2038 (<HOLDING>). Morgan believes that the plain-view doctrine 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant (B) holding a visual strip and visual cavity search unreasonable when done beside a police car (C) recognizing the courts continued holding that visual observation is no search at all (D) holding that there is no illegal search within the fourth amendment where a police officer makes a visual observation of contraband from a vantage point he rightfully occupies (E) holding a month delay in search of a computer constitutional because probable cause continued to exist at the time of the search and no prejudice occurred

SOLUTION:
holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant