Instructions: 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.
Input: supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, we deny his motion that we disregard them. 2 . Dunn asserts that Officer McClain's, self-described "evasive maneuver" involved only taking his foot off the accelerator and did not involve braking' or making a quick movement. Regardless, deceleration, whether by braking or discontinuing acceleration, in response to a weaving driver, is evasive, and unsafe weaving does not require that other drivers brake or make quick, furtive movements. See Taylor v. State, 916 S.W.2d 680, 681-82 (Tex. App.-Waco 1996, pet. ref'd) (considering swerving into another lane and almost hitting an officers' vehicle therein to be unsafe driving); see also Yeakley v. State, No. 03-09-00584-CR, 2011 WL 677391, at *4 (Tex.App-Austin Feb. 25, 2011, pet. dism'd)
Holding statements: (A) holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics (B) holding that a drivers knowledge that there are concealable weapons in the car available for the drivers use is evidence of possession (C) holding that surrounding drivers use of caution to avoid the appellants weaving vehicle did not render the weaving safe (D) holding that drivers decision to use alternate vehicle to avoid inconvenience of stopping at gas station did not render vehicle temporary substitute (E) holding that where uncontroverted evidence rebuts a presumption that a defendant consented to the drivers use of his vehicle the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
Output:
holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics