TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: to the poisonous tree") (quoting Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d at 1117). To be able to object to the police conducting an illicit protective sweep of the Gonzalez residence, Defendant would have to have some basis to claim that the sweep violated his rights. He does not. We conclude, therefore, that his subsequent detention was lawful. 2. Defendant's detention occurred after the police had conducted the sweep of Gonzalez's residence, and only an individual with a legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence could object to the sweep. After entering the garage, officers acted reasonably in detaining Defendant when they caught him red handed with large quantities of marijuana, cuttings tools, and scales in plain sight. See United States v. Turner, 553 F.3d 1337, 1344 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). We reject any contention that the officers
Holding statements: (A) holding that the standard of probable cause applies to all arrests without the need to balance the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations thus an officer may without violating the fourth amendment arrest an offender if probable cause exists to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence (B) holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it (C) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment (D) holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed (E) holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: are complete and present within the proscribed state statute of limitations. Id. at 393-94, 127 S.Ct. 1091. Plaintiff argues that because Wallace dealt with a false arrest and not a search and seizure, its analysis is inapplicable. (D.E. 8, Plaintiffs Response). However, the general rule of Wallace soundly applies to a search and seizure scenario, as noted by the Sixth Circuit and several Kentucky district courts. See Harper, 293 Fed. Appx. at 391 n. 1 ("Wallace also clarified that Heck does not delay the accrual of an otherwise complete and present cause of action when judgment in the plaintiffs favor 'would impugn an anticipated future conviction .... ' Harper's claims thus accrued on July 31, 2003, the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure."); Kenney, 2011 WL 1582125 at *6 (<HOLDING>); Lovins v. Hurt, No. 11-216-JBC, 2011 WL
Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiffs 1983 claim accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure (B) holding that a ruling on preindictment motion that search and seizure were legal collaterally estopped defendant from later moving to suppress evidence claiming that search and seizure were illegal (C) holding that section 1983 action for unlawful search and seizure accrued on dates of seizures rather than date on which state court declared the acts illegal (D) holding that the plaintiffs cause of action accrued on the date of the repealer statute not on the date the wrong occurred despite the federal courts ruling as to the statutes unconstitutionality (E) holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: or promissory estoppel. The district court granted summary judgment to the state on all claims. Costilla appeals the summary judgment as to her sexual harassment claim and the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. In October 1996, Costilla also brought a separate action against Acosta and the United States Department of Labor. Costilla remains employed at the state. ISSUES I. Does the MHRA recognize non-employee sexual harassment? II. Does the MHRA's one-year statute of limitation bar Costilla's claim? III. Did the district court err when it granted the state summary judgment when the state had notice in June 1993 that a non-employee, Acosta, was sexually harassing its employee, Costilla; the state took no corrective action for Supp. 500, 513 (E.D.Va.1992) (<HOLDING>), affirmed 40 F.3d 1244 (4th Cir.1994); EEOC v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment (B) holding employee had cause of action against her employers when nonemployee harassed her and employers failed to take corrective action (C) holding employee had cause of action against city when nonemployee alderman sexually harassed employee (D) holding employer may be hable when its employee is sexually harassed by employers patrons and employer either ratifies or acquiesces in harassment by not taking immediate andor corrective action (E) holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on his or her employers reaction to the speech

SOLUTION:
(B)