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.

to claim the radio. Higazy was released in his cotton prison scrubs and given three dollars for subway fare. "Higazy spent 31 days [in the New York MCC], all but a few hours in solitary confinement." Christine Haughney, "A Sept. 11 Casualty: 'Radio Man' Jailed for A Month, Then Freed; Egyptian Student Perplexed by Mistaken Arrest," 3/11/02 Wash. Post, at A3, available at 2002 WL 15844201. 30 . It should be emphasized that, even if the government had the statutory authority to detain Awadallah, the question would remain as to whether the government nonetheless violated Awadallah's Fourth Amendment rights. Even when the government acts with probable cause and a warrant, government actions must be reasonable. See Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 763-66, 105 S.Ct. 1611, 84 L.Ed.2d 662 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The prolonged detention of a previously
Holding statements: (A) holding that the surgical removal of a bullet was on the facts of the case unreasonable despite judicial review and authorization and probable cause (B) holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same (C) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (D) holding that the existence of probable cause in a 1983 case is a jury question (E) holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute
holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same