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.

of Plymouth, 945 F.2d 1416, 1420-21 (8th Cir.1991); Hall v. Ochs, 817 F.2d 920, 924 (1st Cir.1987)). Against this background, this Court must determine whether these findings must necessarily lead to the conclusion that qualified immunity is unavailable to Defendant Rogers. The Court concludes that they do not. Applying the Third Circuit's observation that police officers generally have a duty to know the elements of the laws they enforce as a starting point, the Court acknowledges that there exist exceptions to this general rule. Indeed, in establishing the general rule that police officers are required to know clearly established law the United States Supreme Court noted that the rule is not absolute. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (<HOLDING>). In Amore v. Novarro, 624 F.3d 522 (2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs assertion that he neither knew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known about the governments possible liability for his injury was irrelevant to accrual of his ftca claim (B) holding that the destruction of documents which the party knew or should have known would be relevant to a pending or potential lawsuit is sanctionable (C) holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances (D) holding that in extraordinary circumstances where a police officer neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard qualified immunity may still be available (E) holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong
holding that the plaintiffs assertion that he neither knew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known about the governments possible liability for his injury was irrelevant to accrual of his ftca claim