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: in original) (quoting Capital City Press, 4 So.3d at 821). It is noted that none of these cases concerned significant privacy interests. 13 .The laws of several states specifically provide that police personnel files are not subject to disclosure under state freedom of information acts. See Cal.Penal Code 832.7 (providing police personnel records are confidential except for investigations or proceedings conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney's office, or the Attorney General's office); Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, 9200(c)(12) (providing that all records compiled as a result of an investigation of a law- enforcement officer "shall be and remain confidential and shall not be released to the public"); Union Leader Corp. v, Fenniman, 136 N.H. 624, 620 A.2d 1039, 1041 (N.H.1993) (<HOLDING>); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law 50-a (providing that
Holding statements: (A) holding that records of personal phone calls made by staff employees of the house of representatives fall outside the current definition of public records and were properly redacted (B) holding that documents generated by the cia at the specific request of congress were exempt from disclosure as congressional records (C) holding that personnel records or conduct investigative records regarding police officers are exempt from disclosure under virginias freedom of information act which exempts personnel records from disclosure (D) holding defendant charged with making harassing phone call to sheriffs department did not meet burden of showing impartiality even though case was tried to a judge to whom defendant also made aggravating calls (E) holding that documents compiled during internal investigation of police lieutenant accused of making harassing phone calls were records pertaining to internal personnel practices within the meaning of new hampshires righttoinow law and thus were exempt from disclosure
Output:
holding that records of personal phone calls made by staff employees of the house of representatives fall outside the current definition of public records and were properly redacted