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.
Q: court costs shall not be assessed under certain circumstances in obtaining the return of certain seized or withheld property; and making certain technical correction to the language and style of expressions of certain provisions of the Annotated Code of Maryland." House of Delegates Bill 902, 1976 regular session of the General Assembly, by the House of Delegates Judicial Proceedings Committee, at 1 (emphasis and alterations in original). This amendment declined to impose court costs on the petitioner if the court "restored" the property "from whom it was taken." Again, there is no indication that the General Assembly intended to create a private right of action for damages to property resulting from a search and seizure. 5 . Section 306 provided: " 'If, at any time, on a 467 (1991)
Holding statements: (A) holding complaint sufficiently pleaded malice where it contained allegations that a police officer unprovoked and without cause while in civilian clothes and without identifying himself threw a rock hitting the side of plaintiffs automobile and that the defendant grabbed mr sawyer and wrestled him to the ground grabbed him by the hair and began hitting him in the face and said that he was going to kill sawyer (B) holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station (C) holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him (D) holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force (E) holding that a police officers tackling of a handcuffed suspect hitting him in the face twice and banging his head on the floor three times was unconstitutional
A:
holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station