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.
--------
Question: automobiles are likewise per se reasonable given probable cause, then by the same logic any search or seizure could be carried out without a warrant, and we would simply have read the Fourth Amendment out of the Constitution"). The Court cannot allow law enforcement to emasculate well settled constitutional protections in order to cure their own mistake. 9 . The Court notes that the Supreme Court has implied that exigent circumstances are never necessary to justify a warrantless search, but has never expressly stated such a conclusion without first noting that the vehicle in question was somehow readily mobile. See Search And Seizure, supra at 477-81, 91 S.Ct. 2022. As a result, lower courts have split when interpreting its meaning. See United States v. Reed, 26 F.3d 523 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Reis, 906 F.2d 284 (7th
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that among the circumstances accepted as providing exigent circumstances for a warrantless search are those where a true emergency exists (B) holding that officers cannot base a warrantless search on an exigent circumstance of their own creation (C) holding that the searehincidenttoalawfularrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest (D) holding that camey notwithstanding the fact that a car is moveable alone is not sufficiently exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search (E) holding that parole status alone is insufficient to justify search of a parolee

Answer: (D)

Question: requirements under UFTA, Gulf and Security nevertheless contend that as a matter of law and of public policy the statute of limitations should not have commenced in this action until they obtained the default judgment against Clark in August of 1997 in California. 24 As far as the law is concerned, Gulf and Security vigorously argue under the mistaken assumption that a creditor may not assert an UFTA claim until after the underlying judgment is entered. This persistent assumption represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law under UFTA. 25 Gulf and Security base their theory on our decision in Murphy v. Atkinson (1993), 262 Mont. 164, 864 P.2d 273, as well as a recent appellate court decision from California, Cortez v. Vogt (Cal.Ct.App. 1997), 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 853-54 (<HOLDING>). In Murphy, we determined that a cause of
Holding statements: (A) holding that the twoyear time limitation of rule 3850 does not commence until the sentence becomes final (B) holding that statements and charges by municipality may not be amended in light of legislative purpose of shielding police and similar employees from harassment (C) holding that in view of legislative statements of policy and purpose of the ufta as a cumulative and additional remedy limitation period did not commence until debtorcreditor relationship existed after judgment was made final (D) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence (E) holding that statements made in the course of negotiation were not contracts and such statements were merged into the final written agreement

Answer: (C)

Question: venture" (FAC 39) are similarly insufficient. See Cannon v. Douglas Elliman, L.L.C., No. 06-CV-7092, 2007 WL 4358456, at *4 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2007) ("[Pjleading a joint venture does not trigger joint employer status because it is possible for joint ventures to separately employ different people .... "); Hibbs-Rines v. Seagate Techs., L.L.C., No. 08-CV-5430, 2009 WL 513496, at *5 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 2, 2009) ("Plaintiff joint employer allegations are insufficient because they are legal conclusions, not factual allegations, .... While plaintiff is not required to conclusively establish that defendants were her joint employers at the pleading stage, plaintiff must at least allege some facts in support of this legal conclusion.") cf. Patel v. Wargo, 803 F.2d 632, 635-36 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs arguments that these Defendants
Holding statements: (A) holding under flsa 29 usc 216c (B) holding that the authorization under 29 usc 1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc 1106a (C) holding under 29 usc 216c (D) holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc 203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc 203d (E) holding that the defendant is in the best position to prove and should bear the burden of establishing its entitlement to an exemption under 29 usc 1108 from 29 usc 1106b erisas prohibited transactions provision

Answer:
(D)