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.

Example Input: a sergeant entered the house with her. 2 . Harris testified that he opened the door for the police: "I saw them coming, so I just opened the door." However, Officer Shepard testified that she knocked on the door and that after no one answered she entered the house through the door, which was unlocked. 3 . We decline to reach the question whether the warrantless entry and the search by the police officers were justified by exigent circumstances. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)(rejecting a "murder scene exception" created by the Supreme Court of Arizona to the requirement of obtaining a warrant). See also Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 22, 105 S.Ct. 409, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984)(applying Mincey); Ex parte Usrey, 527 So.2d 732 (Ala.1987) (<HOLDING>); A.A.G. v. State, 668 So.2d 122, 128
Holding statements: (A) holding no liability existed under the circumstances (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 that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant (D) holding that exigent circumstances were present because evidence of bloodalcohol content could disappear during the time necessary to obtain a warrant (E) recognizing that exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: also admitted he personally observed that Gretillat had trouble walking long distances. Indeed, Priske excused Gretillat from making rounds of the facility due to Gretillat's difficulty walking long distances. In April of 2004, Priske admitted that Gretillat's forced resignation arose out of Gretillat's problems with standing and "ambulating." See, e.g., Cannice v. Norwest Bank Iowa N.A., 189 F.3d 723, 727 (8th Cir.1999) (finding "ample evidence" that employee alerted employer to the existence of disability where employee told employer about disability, gave employer information about the ADA, requested an unmonitored telephone line to talk with his "support network," and displayed symptoms of the disability at work); see also Miller, 61 F.3d at 630 (quoting Hedberg, 47 F.3d at 934) (<HOLDING>). Because Care Initiatives was apprised of
Holding statements: (A) holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada (B) holding that if all of an employees coworkers knew that he had a heart condition such knowledge would not amount to notice to the employer that the employee was so limited by a disability as to require special accommodations (C) holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability (D) holding that an employee who claims to have been terminated by her employer for having exercised her right to disability benefits raised a cognizable claim under 510 of erisa notwithstanding the fact that she received the benefits from her employer prior to termination (E) recognizing that employer has notice of limitation when disability manifests itself to the extent that it would be reasonable to infer that her employer actually knew of the disability
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: Office Defendants The court also concludes that the Sheriffs Office defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs claims for negligence and wrong ful death. Even if the court assumes that the defendant deputies were somehow negligent in the manner in which they handled Harvey, the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that the deputies were engaged in an essential governmental function involving the exercise of discretion and judgment at all times relevant to the complaint, and thus, that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 321 S.E.2d 657, 663 (1984) (setting forth the factors considered for sovereign immunity); see also Colby v. Boyden, 241 Va. 125, 400 S.E.2d 184, 187 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Shaffer v. City of Hampton, 780 F.Supp. 342,
Holding statements: (A) holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity (B) holding officers involved in investigatory raid entitled to immunity (C) holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity (D) holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity (E) holding that a city police officers negligent actions involved in the pursuit of a speeding automobile were entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity
Example Output:
(E)