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: that, although the trial court was initially prepared to suppress based solely on the deputies' conduct in providing Gomez's name, the court ultimately applied the Neil factors and, finding that the identification was unreliable, ruled the state failed to establish that the witness' recollection was independent of the suggestive identification. On these facts, the trial court could properly conclude that it was unnecessarily suggestive for the victims to be provided the defendant's name and resulting access to his photo on the website before having any opportunity to identify him, thus giving rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See generally Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 518 (Fla.2005)(quoting Washington v. State, 653 So.2d 362, 365 (Fla.1994)) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. State, 566 So.2d 888, 890 (Fla.
Holding statements: (A) holding that showup identification proce dure was not unduly suggestive where officer said to eyewitness we got two guys in the car similar to the ones you told us about (B) holding that unprovoked flight is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such (C) holding showing of a single photo is unduly suggestive (D) holding that showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive where defendant was handcuffed and placed under police spotlight (E) holding due process requires suppression of testimony regarding pretrial identification when procedure employed is impermissibly suggestive

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: to raise any claim contesting Defendants' entry into her home or taking of photographs, and she cannot add such a claim at this stage of the litigation. To the extent Plaintiff contends that the photographs are inadmissible pursuant to the exclusionary rule, the court disagrees there is no indication of an illegal search in any of Plaintiff's filings. It appears that Plaintiff voluntarily permitted Defendants to enter the home. After entering the home, the officers were entitled to photograph objects in their plain view, and they were also permitted to photograph evidence they viewed from outside the residence, such as the window screens. See Wilson v. Supt., Attica Corr. Facility, No. 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GLS), 2003 WL 22765351, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2003) (report and recommendation) (<HOLDING>), adopted, Order, 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GS)
Holding statements: (A) holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment (B) holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein (C) holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building (D) holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found (E) holding that photographs taken of items outside defendants apartment that were in plain view of the officer were properly admitted

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: power to determine whether claimants to a share of decedent's stock in a Native American Corporation are adopted children. Calista Corp. v. Mann, 564 P.2d 53, 57-58 (Alaska 1977). The Alaska court also, in Ollestead v. Native Village of Tyonek, 560 P.2d 31 (Alaska), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 938, 98 S.Ct. 426, 54 L.Ed.2d 297 (1977), held state courts were without jurisdiction to determine whether claimants to oil royalties were members of a Native Village. In Comenout v. Burdman, 84 Wash.2d 192, 525 P.2d 217 (1974), the court held that jurisdiction under Public Law 280 existed to terminate the parental rights of reservation Indians. See also In re Adoption of Buehl, 87 Wash.2d 649, 555 P.2d 1334 (1976); Duluth Lumber and Plywood Co. v. Delta Development, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 377 (Minn. 1979) (<HOLDING>). Voorhees v. Spencer, 89 Nev. 1, 504 P.2d 1321
Holding statements: (A) holding that the wisconsin supreme court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in determining that public law 280 conferred civil jurisdiction to the state of wisconsin to commit burgess an enrolled member of an indian tribe as a sexually violent person (B) holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with public law 280 (C) holding that pursuant to amended public law 280 a tribe must consent to state court civil jurisdiction over actions arising against member indians in indian country (D) holding the existence of jurisdiction in state courts to hear a dispute by a materials supplier against a contractor in an indian housing agency under the authority of public law 280 (E) holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation

SOLUTION:
(D)