instruction:
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:
he called the dispatcher for assistance, the occupants had already been handcuffed. And the record provides no indication that the occupants threatened his safety. Moreover, if Reilly had not been concerned that the occupants would discard evidence, he and Horn could have driven the four, two to a car. Instead, he opted to wait for separate transportation, so the suspects could not leave contraband in the patrol car and possibly blame their fellow passengers. Reilly also had an objective reason to believe that Voichahoske was concealing evidence and that given the opportunity, he might destroy it. Reilly already had probable cause to believe Voichahoske was concealing drugs on his person, which, in turn, justified his arrest. See State v. Dussault, 193 Neb. 122, 225 N.W.2d 558 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Because a search of his person was
Holding statements: (A) holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause (B) holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest (C) holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest (D) holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same (E) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment
answer:
(D)

question:
this case was scheduled for a date approximately six months after the permanent injunction had expired. The procedural posture of this case is comparable to that of Madonna, in which the plaintiffs challenged their confinements while awaiting a hearing to determine whether they should be committed to mental institutions. 295 N.W.2d at 358. The plaintiffs filed petitions for habeas corpus during their pre-hearing confinements, which lasted only a matter of weeks, but the petitions were not adjudicated before their pre-hearing confinements ended. Id. at 358-59. Approximately two and one-half years later, the supreme court held that the case was not moot, reasoning that "some method of review must exist." Id. at 361; see also Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 208 n. 2 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 188 n. 1, 210
Holding statements: (A) holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired (B) holding that district court may award money due under a statute even though time for disbursement had expired (C) holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement (D) holding expired child abuse protective order not moot because of possible effect on future custody determinations (E) holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot
answer:
(A)

question:
v. United Technologies Corp., 985 F.2d 1148, 1154 (2d Cir.1993) (stating "[b]e-cause the qui tam relator: (1) funds the prosecution of the FCA suit, (2) will receive a private share in the government's recovery only upon prevailing, and (3) may be liable for costs if the suit is frivolous, the relator's personal stake in the case is sufficiently ensured."); United States Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev. ex rel. Givler v. Smith, 775 F.Supp. 172, 180 (E.D.Pa.1991) (acknowledging that a relator's personal interest in the outcome in the litigation, the relator is considered to have "a sufficient stake to ensure the genuine adverseness of the litigation.") (citing Flast, 392 U.S. at 99); United States ex rel. Stillwell v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 714 F.Supp. 1084, 1097-99 (C.D.Cal.1989) (<HOLDING>). The second rationale courts apply is that the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a reasonable probability is one that in the judgment of the reviewing court is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding citation omitted (B) recognizing that the mere plausibility of a different outcome is not sufficient to justify reversal (C) holding statutory violation sufficient cause (D) recognizing that the statutory bounty is sufficient to give the relator a personal stake in the outcome (E) holding that an employer does not have thirdparty standing to challenge a labor statute on its employees behalf simply because the employees probably would not be motivated to assert their own interests because they lack a sufficient individual economic stake in the outcome
answer:
(D)