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.
--------
Question: until they were "in close proximity." Lowe, 2014 WL 99452, at *3; see also Westport Ins. Corp. v. Bayer, 284 F.3d 489, 498 (3d Cir.2002) (according plain meaning to the district court's choice of language in affirming its "implicit" findings of fact). These findings control because they are not clearly erroneous. Rather, they are suppo a- suspect takes action that clearly indicates that he "does not yield" to the officers' show of authority. Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547. Action not passivity has been the touchstone of our an h Cir.2010) (noting that, "for a person who is moving, to 'yield' most sensibly means to stop"), or when a suspect makes suspicious motions consistent with reaching for a weapon, see United States v. Johnson, 212 F.3d 1313, 1316-17 (D.C.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Unlike the suspects in those cases, Lowe
Holding statements: (A) holding that i have a gun is sufficient to justify the sentencing enhancement because it merely requires a teller to make the reasonable inference that a robber would use the gun he claimed to have if he did not receive the money he demanded (B) holding that a suspect did not submit to a show of authority when he made continued furtive gestures including shoving down motions that were suggestive of hiding or retrieving a gun (C) holding that a suspect who continued walking when approached by a police officer did not submit until physically restrained by the officer (D) holding that evidence of appellants prior gun possession was admissible in a homicide prosecution to show malice and intent possession of a gun without more is not wrongful conduct (E) holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept

Answer: holding that i have a gun is sufficient to justify the sentencing enhancement because it merely requires a teller to make the reasonable inference that a robber would use the gun he claimed to have if he did not receive the money he demanded

Question: seeking to invoke the exception must establish that they agreed to engage in a joint effort and to keep the shared information confidential from outsiders. See, e.g., United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243-44 (2d Cir.1989) (finding valid joint defense privilege where information was "imparted in confidence" between parties "who had agreed upon and undertaken a joint strategy"); United States v. Sawyer, 878 F.Supp. 295, 297 (D.Mass.1995) (despite similar interests between employer and employee, insufficient evidence that communications were made during the course of a joint defense effort; proponent could neither establish time frame of agreement nor acts creating and/or terminating the agreement); United States v. United Tech. Corp., 979 F.Supp. 108, 110, 112 (D.Conn.1997) (<HOLDING>); Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida, Ltd., 197
Holding statements: (A) holding common interest doctrine shielded information consortium members shared pursuant to collaboration agreement (B) recognizing doctrine (C) recognizing that tribes and states understood that they shared the right to manage the exercise of in common hunting and fishing rights (D) recognizing a subset of the common interest privilege as parents and schools have a corresponding interest in the free flow of information about administrators and faculty members (E) holding that there was no waiver of the work product protection because the business and public relations firm specializing in litigationrelated crisis management shared a common interest

Answer: recognizing doctrine

Question: that other items in the car, including the backpack, contained evidence of a methamphetamine lab. In fact, the evidence permits no other plausible inference. Therefore, the trial court properly determined that the search was supported by subjective probable cause. We turn to the issue of objective probable cause. Defendant argues: "From an objective standpoint, the backpack did not suggest that it contained crime evidence. Dahl testified that the backpack was closed and that he could not see inside the pack to determine its contents. Although defendant had previously been searched incident to his arrest, the only thing found on defendant's person was a bindle that 'didn't appear to have much in it.' * * * That evidence would not support probable cause to believ 68 P2d 1338 (1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Cromwell, 109 Or App 654, 658, 820
Holding statements: (A) holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search (B) holding that officers had probable cause to search the defendants van for drugs where among other facts the defendant had voluntarily retrieved half a gram of methamphetamine from the vehicle and had acted surreptitiously in doing so (C) holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime (D) holding that where other evidence established probable cause to believe that the defendant possessed controlled substances investigating officers had probable cause to search the defendants purse for similar evidence (E) holding that the protective sweep of a van was lawful where officers stopped the van on reasonable suspicion that the driver had just committed an armed bank robbery and officers could not see inside the van to determine whether other occupants posed a danger to them

Answer:
holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search