Instructions: 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.
Input: CURIAM 1(Writ Granted. For reasons more fully discussed in Judge Ledet's dissent, State v. Pitts, 16-1068 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/29/16) (unpub'd) (Ledet, J., dissenting), the court of appeal majority erred by reversing the district court and by granting the motion to suppress evidence, the defendant's statement, and the identification. See State v. Washington, 12-2203, p. 4 (La. 11/16/12), 104 So.3d 401, 404 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court of appeal's ruling is
Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to property leading up to and including the threshold of a residence therefore police officers were well within their authority to proceed on the open walkway to the front door where they saw evidence in plain view (B) holding that the judge issuing the search warrant plainly had a substantial basis for determining that there was probable cause to issue the warrant for the search of a residence when inter alia a reliable cl went to the residence knocked on the door entered and then made a controlled purchase of what appeared to be heroin (C) holding that abandonment was not caused by police misconduct where defendant left bags in open view before officers had knocked on door to gain admission because officers had not yet done anything illegal (D) holding it was not unreasonable for police officers to push the door open further to better ascertain whether the residence had been again burglarized or what the security situation may be (E) holding that absent warrant or exigent circumstances an officer had no authority to demand that the juvenile keep the door open to his residence or demand entry into it and thus the juvenile could not be convicted of resisting a law enforcement officer for trying to close door even if the officer had probable cause to believe that the juvenile was sheltering a runaway
Output:
holding that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to property leading up to and including the threshold of a residence therefore police officers were well within their authority to proceed on the open walkway to the front door where they saw evidence in plain view