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.

[EX Q]: do not apply in ... [piroceedings relating to probation." - Ind. Evidence Rule 101(c)(@2). A probation revocation hearing is not to be equated with an adversarial criminal proceeding. Cox v. State 706 N.E.2d 547, 550 (Ind.1999) (citing Isaac v. State, 605 N.E2d 144, 149 (Ind.1992)). Rather, a revocation hearing is a narrow inquiry, and its procedures are more flexible than those of a criminal proceeding. Id. In revocation hearings, judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability, including expert testimony and scientific evidence. Carter v. State, 706 N.E.2d 552, 554 (Ind.1999) (noting that it is beyond doubt that urinalysis has achieved a sufficient level of scientific reliability to be accepted into evidence); see also Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 550 (<HOLDING>); of - Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557, 559 
 Holding statements: (A) holding hearsay admissible in revocation hearings (B) holding that certified charging informations and police reports are deemed admissible in revocation hearings (C) holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress (D) holding that neither rule 11 nor the protections of boykin apply to probation revocation hearings and observing that less process is due in prison disciplinary proceedings than in probation revocation hearings (E) holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: limits in which the officer is empowered to act, when a report has previously been made that the vehicle has been stolen or a complaint has been filed and a warrant thereon issued charging that the vehicle has been embezzled.” Reading the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Faulk possessed the authority to impound the motorcycle based on the stolen vehicle report. A stolen vehicle report was made, which may give Officer Faulk the authority to impound the motorcycle without a warrant. However, Officer Faulk’s declaration shows that he was aware that the allegedly stolen vehicle was part of a contract dispute between private parties. See Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 238 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The fact that Officer Faulk knew that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a dispute regarding payment of a restaurant bill does not give rise to probable cause to arrest (B) holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint (C) holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute (D) holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause (E) holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: to serve a particular area, a telephone company must obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity from the KCC. K.S.A. 66-131. The KCC is vested with discretion in this area to regulate telephone companies in order to maintain a statewide telecommunications system and to provide for efficient and effective service to communities in Kansas. Therefore, any municipal franchisee must still obtain KCC approval to serve its franchised area. The power of a city to grant franchises does not confer upon that city any power to decide whether a telephone company should be granted a certificate of convenience and necessity. See K.S.A. 12-2002 (stating that the Franchise Act does not affect the jurisdiction of the KCC); City of New Strawn v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 5 Kan. App. 2d at 635 (<HOLDING>). That power was specifically vested in the KCC 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that restrictive covenants in franchise agreements are enforceable to protect the basic product which the franchisor has to sell namely the franchise itself   (B) holding that franchisor has an interest in the goodwill its franchise has created (C) holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit  and the district court has considerable authority whether or not to exercise this power in light of such considerations as judicial economy convenience fairness to litigants and eomity  (D) holding that the kcc has the power to deny a certificate of convenience and necessity regardless of whether the city has granted a franchise (E) recognizing that the legislature has the sole power of enacting law
[EX A]:
(D)

