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.

[EX Q]: 2009 SD 99, 33, 775 N.W.2d 221, 235 (2009) ("The community caretaker exception has been recognized only in the context of automobiles by the United States Supreme Court." (citing Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973))); Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148, 151-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (describing Cady as recognizing "a community caretaking function of law enforcement as a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement" and acknowledging "the existence of the community caretaking function in Texas"); Provo City v. Warden, 844 P.2d 360, 363-65 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (upholding a "seizure" as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment based on the community caretaking doctrine); State v. Ford, 2010 VT 39, 11, 188 Vt. 17, 998 A.2d 684, 689 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Knight v. Commonwealth, 61 Va.App. 297, 734
Holding statements: (A) recognizing emergency exception (B) recognizing exception (C) recognizing the community caretaking exception but holding it inapplicable to justify the police action at issue (D) recognizing that the community caretaking exception is distinct from the emergency aid or emergency assistance exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement (E) holding that community caretaker exception applied but citing and relying on cases discussing the emergency aid exception
[EX A]: recognizing emergency exception

[EX Q]: 375 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir.2004). Since, as we explain below, sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict, we need not consider whether the District's failure to move for judgment as a matter of law at the close of its own case (as opposed to at the close of Smith's case) further limits our review "to considering whether the verdict is so unsupported by the evidence that allowing it to stand would constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice," Fredrick, 254 F.3d at 162. The District presents two fact-based challenges to the jury's verdict. First, it argues that the jury could not have reasonably concluded that the District had a deliberately indifferent policy or custom under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Second, it claims that even had such a policy
Holding statements: (A) holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom (B) holding that county liability under 1983 cannot rest on a theory of respondeat superior (C) holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc 1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition (D) recognizing respondeat superior liability (E) holding that municipal liability for purposes of claims brought under 42 usc 1983 must stem from an unconstitutional policy or custom rather than simply from respondeat superior
[EX A]: holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom

[EX Q]: weight' given in the lookout. 3 . The government moved for admission of the report after Officer Garner confirmed that it bore the same identification number as the heat-sealed envelope in which she placed the two ziplocks given to her by Officer McClinton 4 . The chemist's report is commonly referred to the "DEA-7," but to be precise, it is only the Report of Drug Property Collected, Purchased or Seized that is the Drug Enforcement Administration Form 7, or DEA-7. 5 . jn the chemist's absence, Officer Garner misunderstood the report and testified that the net weight of the cocaine base was .15 grams. This answer was mistaken because .15 grams was the reported net weight of the white rocky substance in its entirety. 6 . See Giles v. District of Columbia, 548 A.2d 48, 53-54 (D.C.1988) (<HOLDING>); accord, Ellis v. United States, 834 A.2d 858,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances (B) holding that a chemists report is admissible under dccode 4890506 without need for a testimonial foundation if four requirements are met 1 the analysis of a controlled substance must be performed by a chemist charged with an official duty to perform such analysis 2 an official report of chain of custody and of analysis of the controlled substance must be attested to by that chemist 3 the chemists official report must be attested to by the officer having legal custody of the report and 4 the official report must be accompanied by a certificate under seal that the officer has legal custody (C) holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court (D) holding that the color of law element may be satisfied by the fact that an official gains access to the victim in the course of official duty (E) holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error
[EX A]:
holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances