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: search, Dahl located several items in the trunk that he recognized as commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Those items were located in the same area where the backpack was found. When he found the backpack, Dahl had already located the book on chemicals on the floor in the passenger area where defendant had been sitting, and he had also found contraband in defendant's fanny pack. When Dahl discovered the contraband visible in the trunk of the car, he contacted the narcotics team to continue the search because of his concern about the hazardous nature of methamphetamine production. He then went into the store to arrest defendant and Johnson. The foregoing facts, taken together, support an inference that Dahl and the other searching officers subjectively b 888 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Of course, probable cause alone is not
Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants conviction for two possession of marijuana counts could not be supported by his possession of two marijuana cigarettes dropped from his hand and again for his possession of several packets of marijuana found in a nearby jacket during the same search (B) holding that officers had objective probable cause to search the pocket of a jacket found on the seat of the defendants truck where the discovery of marijuana in two different locations in the truck combined with the defendants possession of marijuana reasonably led officers to believe that other caches would be found elsewhere in the vehicle (C) holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper (D) recognizing without inquiring whether the officers would necessarily have arrested the defendant that the discovery of the marijuana in the van provided probable cause to arrest the defendant and upon arrest the officers unquestionably would have searched the defendant and discovered the marijuana in his pocket (E) holding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant a rear seat passenger of a car for possession of marijuana based on the discovery of two marijuana seeds in the front of the vehicle
Output:
holding that a defendants conviction for two possession of marijuana counts could not be supported by his possession of two marijuana cigarettes dropped from his hand and again for his possession of several packets of marijuana found in a nearby jacket during the same search