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.

Example Input: Brown's argument that she was speaking as a citizen is supported by the fact that ordinary citizens may similarly report public misconduct to the Auditors. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-61dd (conferring right to file reports with Auditors on "any person"). The existence of a civilian analogue to Brown's conduct strengthens her allegations that her speech was as a citizen and thus protected by the First Amendment. See Matthews I, 779 F.3d at 176. The instant case is not similar to other cases of its type that were dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage. In many of those cases, the plaintiff-employee had made an admission that the alleged speech was made, at least in part, pursuant to his or her official duties. See Matthews v. Lynch, 483 Fed.Appx. 624, 626 (2d Cir. 2012) (Matthews III) (<HOLDING>); Anemone, 629 F.3d at 116. Here, there is no
Holding statements: (A) holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel (B) holding that a plaintiff did not complain to the eeoc pursuant to official duties but rather as a citizen (C) holding that pursuant to garcetti plaintiffs speech made in the course of his official duties was unprotected as a matter of law (D) holding that speech was pursuant to official duties because plaintiff conceded at oral argument that as an internal affairs officer he had a broad responsibility to investigate and report police misconduct (E) holding police officer is a public official
Example Output: holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel

Example Input: Therefore, the magistrate could not have relied on such information when making the probable cause determination. [ 23] When Utvick's room was searched on June 1, 2002, the officer observed persons in the room attempting to dispose of drugs by flushing in the bathroom, after executing a search warrant without a no-knock provision. While Ut-vick is not alleged to have engaged in this activity, Utvick was the registered guest of the hotel room and was in the company of persons suspected of disposing of evidence. Prior history of destruction of evidence, when detailed in an affidavit for a no-knock search warrant, is not a threshold requirement but may strengthen probable cause to believe evidence will be destroyed. Cf. Mazepink v. Arkansas, 336 Ark. 171, 987 S.W.2d 648, 655 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Henderson, 629 N.W.2d at 624 (holding
Holding statements: (A) holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant (B) holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant (C) holding noknock search warrant unreasonable because no exigent circumstances existed and noting moreover there was no evidence the occupants may have attempted to destroy the evidence by flushing it down the toilet (D) holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant (E) holding no liability existed under the circumstances
Example Output: holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant

Example Input: 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). 5 . See also Faragher, 118 S.Ct. at 2289 (noting that the circuits uniformly have applied a negligence standard to title VII cases involving harassment by co-workers). 6 . Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 478 (5th Cir.1989); see also Nash v. Electrospace Sys., Inc., 9 F.3d 401, 404 (5th Cir.1993) (discussing failure of plaintiff to complain to "company hierarchy"). 7 . In Williamson, the supervisor whose knowledge was deemed sufficient to impute actual knowledge to the employer was an HPD sergeant. See Williamson, 148 F.3d at 463. 8 . This standard comports with that of other circuits. See, e.g., Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F.3d 1122, 1125 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation and citation omitted);
Holding statements: (A) holding that one who exercises daytoday control over the employee will be considered as the employer (B) holding that the proper inquiry is whether the individual defendant served in a supervisory position in which he exercised significant control over the plaintiffs hiring firing or conditions of employment and if not whether employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of a hostile work environment and took no prompt and adequate remedial steps (C) holding that while town counsel had final supervisory authority over the hiring and firing of employees in plaintiffs position it did not have supervisory authority over the mayors constructive discharge of plaintiff (D) holding board had jurisdiction when employer had final authority over the essential terms and conditions of employment including wages benefits hiring firing promotion discipline and grievances although employer was subject to various governmentimposed restrictions (E) holding that agent part of title viis definition of employer includes someone who serves in a supervisory position and exercises significant control over hiring firing or conditions of employment
Example Output:
holding that one who exercises daytoday control over the employee will be considered as the employer