Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

being under the influence of a drug necessarily poses a threat of concealing (and thereby using or trafficking) additional drugs in jail during the limited time between booking and bail, or booking and placement in the general population. If not, it was unreasonable to assume that Way harbored drugs in some cavity or other. "Reasonable suspicion may be based on such factors as the nature of the offense, the arrestee's appearance and conduct, and the prior arrest record." Giles, 746 F.2d at 617. Way was under the control of the arresting officer from the time she was taken into custody at work until booking. The officer perceived no indication that she was carrying drugs or contraband. Compare, e.g., People v. Wade, 208 Cal.App.3d 304, 306-07, 256 Cal.Rptr. 189, 190-91 (Cal.Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Hanson conducted a pat down search before
Holding statements: (A) holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search (B) holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant (C) holding that private physician who conducted cavity search of drug suspect pursuant to facially valid search warrant was entitled to qualified immunity in suspects 1983 action where he did not act on his own initiative or out of selfinterest he was uniquely qualified to perform search procedure and where court found that extending qualified immunity to physicians under the circumstances of this case would benefitf society by effectuating acceptable means to execute body cavity searches pursuant to a warrant issued on probable cause and benefit the party being searched by providing a safe means of conducting the search in a medically approved manner (D) holding probable cause to be required for strip and visual body cavity searches (E) holding that a body cavity search was justified by the arresting officers observation of the suspect apparently trying to put something beneath his waistband
holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search