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.

Example Input: rely on a warrant to search a house where the warrant affidavit stated that there was marijuana growing near the house and that there was a road from the house to the marijuana). Of course, the information in the affidavit does not eliminate the possibility that the marijuana came from somewhere else. The affidavit states that the trash was found at the end of a lane that dumped out into a rural highway. Admittedly, the trash could have been flung out the window of a passing car, or it could have fallen off the back of a garbage truck. However, when it comes to probable cause, the name says it all; certainty is never required, only a fair probability. When the issue is one of good-faith reliance, even less is necessary. See United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The affidavit must simply bear some indicia
Holding statements: (A) holding that magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists (B) holding that plaintiff was required to plead and prove the absence of probable cause to support his bivens claim (C) holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity (D) holding that the existence of probable cause in a 1983 case is a jury question (E) holding that leon requires a less demanding showing than the substantial basis threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause in the first place
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: fact that the oil traversed part of Transocean's vessel before entering the Gulf of Mexico. We recognize that the aforementioned incidents involved blameless third parties, whereas here the owner or operator of the Deepwater Horizon might have contributed to the discharge. By all accounts, if the vessel's blowout preventer had functioned properly, the oil would not have entered navigable waters in violation of the Clean Water Act. The defendants therefore reason that liability is properly imposed upon the owner or operator of the Deepwater Horizon. Yet it is well estab lished that this section of the Clean Water Act leaves no room for civil-penalty defendants to shift liability via allegations of third-party fault. See United States v. Tex-Tow, Inc., 589 F.2d 1310, 1314 (7th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Early in the implementation of the Act's
Holding statements: (A) holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys (B) holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule (C) holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party (D) holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant (E) holding defendant liable for penalty notwithstanding fault of a third party
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: reasonable expectations of a layperson. Id. at 202, 187 P.3d at 586. 23 . The Court notes that AmerisourceBergen cited Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995), which involved abstention under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and not Younger, for the proposition that "abstention to avoid concur rent, duplicative litigation is available in some very limited circumstances." AmerisourceBergen, 495 F.3d at 1151. For the reasons discussed, however, Burlington's reliance on AmerisourceBergen is unavailing. 24 . To the extent Hawai'i law would allow for reimbursement in the circumstances at bar, such a right to reimbursement would likely be equitable in nature, although still an "at law" claim for monetary damages. See Scottsdale II, 2007 WL 2247795 at *3-8 (<HOLDING>); Porter v. Hu, 116 Hawai'i 42, 56-57, 169 P.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that insurer is not required to pay cost of defending action it was never afforded an opportunity to defend (B) holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts (C) holding that the hawaii supreme court would likely apply equitable principles of quasicontract restitution and unjust enrichment to allow an insurer to be reimbursed for the cost of defending a lawsuit it was determined postsettlement not to have had a duty to defend (D) holding on summary judgment before the question of the insurers obligation to indemnify was decided that the insurer was liable for the costs of the insured in defending the declaratory judgment action because it breached its duty to defend (E) holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend
Example Output:
(C)