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.

[EX Q]: enter a residence without a warrant if an objectively reasonable basis exists for the officer to believe that there is an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or substantial property interests." Seibert v. State, 923 So.2d 460, 468 (Fla. 2006) (citing Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278, 293-94 (Fla. 1997)). Whether an emergency actually existed is immaterial "so long as the officer reasonably believes it to exist because of objectively reasonable facts. The officer's conclusion then may be based on a combination of the 'objective' nature of the circumstances and the officer's 'subjective' perception of those circumstances." State v. Boyd, 615 So.2d 786, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Missouri v. McNeely, U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1559, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (<HOLDING>). The record supports that law enforcement
Holding statements: (A) holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable (B) holding that in determining prejudice a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury (C) holding that the court must consider the totality of the circumstance when determining whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant (D) holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith (E) holding a search permissible where the officer reasonably believed he faced an emergency situation that would result in the destruction of evidence
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: 26-7A, 26-8A, and 26-8C or of Title 27A shall control, and the provisions of this chapter are in all respects to be supplementary thereto. (emphasis added). Thus, where allegations of abuse and neglect serve as the grounds for the guardianship petition, as was the case here, the statutory provisions specifically relating to abuse and neglect proceedings, as well as the provisions relating to juvenile court, must control. See Martinmaas, 2000 SD 85 at 49, 612 N.W.2d at 611. [ 10.] Adjudication of abuse or neglect is done in juvenile court pursuant to SDCL chapters 26-7A and 26-8A. SDCL 26-7A-2 provides for exclusive juri 's interest, as parens patriae, in protecting the welfare of the child. SDCL 26-8A-1. See also Matter of N.J.W., N.G.B., and K.F.B., 273 N.W.2d 134, 137 (S.D.1978) (<HOLDING>). The State is the only party that may seek to
Holding statements: (A) holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right (B) holding state as parens patriae takes strong interest in care and treatment of children within its borders (C) recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children (D) holding that missouri has interest in providing a forum for victims injured as a result of activities conducted within its borders (E) recognizing that with respect to regulating or affecting conduct within its borders the place of the wrong has the predominant interest
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: revision of testimony creates an issue of fact where none existed before. Otherwise, any party could head off a summary judgment motion by supplanting previous depositions ad hoc with a new affidavit, and no case would ever be appropriate for summary judgment. Wilson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 838 F.2d 286, 289 (8th Cir.1988) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Bass v. City of Sioux Falls, 232 F.3d 615, 618 (8th Cir.1999). The court has considerable experience with this issue: This court has with some frequency considered the question of whether eleventh-horn' affidavits that contradict deposition testimony can generate a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. See Loeckle v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co., 59 F.Supp.2d 838, 856-58 (N.D.Iowa 1999) (<HOLDING>); Longstreth v. Copple, C97-4100-MWB, slip op.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the court could not conclude that the plaintiffs deposition testimony was so contradictory of the statements contained in plaintiffs affidavit as to foreclose the affidavits use for summary judgment purposes (B) holding that facts alleged in an employees affidavit were insufficient to raise an issue of fact for the purposes of defeating a summary judgment where the affidavit contradicted the employees earlier deposition statements (C) holding that plaintiffs affidavit submitted at summary judgment stage and contradicting earlier deposition testimony should not be considered (D) holding that subsequent affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony does not create genuine issue of fact (E) holding that plaintiffs affidavit failed to fall within the exception stated in camfield tires inc v michelin tire corp 719 f2d 1361 8th cir1983 that an affidavit contradicting the prior deposition testimony of the affiant but containing an adequate explanation for the disparity may create a genuine issue of fact because plaintiffs deposition testimony was so contradictory from the statements contained in her affidavit
[EX A]:
(E)