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.
--------
Question: he called the dispatcher for assistance, the occupants had already been handcuffed. And the record provides no indication that the occupants threatened his safety. Moreover, if Reilly had not been concerned that the occupants would discard evidence, he and Horn could have driven the four, two to a car. Instead, he opted to wait for separate transportation, so the suspects could not leave contraband in the patrol car and possibly blame their fellow passengers. Reilly also had an objective reason to believe that Voichahoske was concealing evidence and that given the opportunity, he might destroy it. Reilly already had probable cause to believe Voichahoske was concealing drugs on his person, which, in turn, justified his arrest. See State v. Dussault, 193 Neb. 122, 225 N.W.2d 558 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Because a search of his person was 
 Holding statements: (A) holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause (B) holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest (C) holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest (D) holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same (E) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment

Answer: (D)


Question: that, although the trial court was initially prepared to suppress based solely on the deputies’ conduct in providing Gomez’s name, the court ultimately applied the Neil factors and, finding that the identification was unreliable, ruled the state failed to establish that the witness’ recollection was independent of the suggestive identification. On these facts, the trial court could properly conclude that it was unnecessarily suggestive for the victims to be provided the defendant’s name and resulting access to his photo on the website before having any opportunity to identify him, thus giving rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See generally Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 518 (Fla.2005)(quoting Washington v. State, 653 So.2d 362, 365 (Fla.1994)) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. State, 566 So.2d 888, 890 (Fla. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that showup identification proce dure was not unduly suggestive where officer said to eyewitness we got two guys in the car similar to the ones you told us about (B) holding that unprovoked flight is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such (C) holding showing of a single photo is unduly suggestive (D) holding that showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive where defendant was handcuffed and placed under police spotlight (E) holding due process requires suppression of testimony regarding pretrial identification when procedure employed is impermissibly suggestive

Answer: (C)


Question: II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to ... a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed ...” (Emphasis added.) In Montana, it is firmly established that venue, although not an element of the crime, is a “jurisdictional fact” that must be established at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Price, 2002 MT 229, ¶ 11, 311 Mont. 439, ¶ 11, 57 P.3d 42, ¶ 11; State v. Johnson (1993), 257 Mont. 157, 161, 848 P.2d 496, 498. However, this Court has recognized that direct evidence that an offense was committed in a particular county is not required to prove venue. State v. Keeland (1909), 39 Mont. 506, 513, 104 P. 513, 516 (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 257 Mont. at 161, 848 P.2d at 498 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition (B) holding testimony that defendant delivered cocaine maybe 20 or 30 times was sufficient to support conviction (C) holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction (D) holding that circumstantial evidence maybe sufficient to prove venue (E) holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination

Answer:
(D)