With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wilcock agreed with him that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff supports that any mistake by Officer Stephens, as to whether he could arrest the Plaintiff for violating the TRO was reasonable. . Ultimately, Plaintiff simply has not presented any controlling legal authority that on May 10, 2001 would have informed Officer Stephens that the Plaintiff could not be arrested for falsely reporting a violation of the TRO at issue. ' Nor has Plaintiff shown that Officer Stephens’ conduct “lies so obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibits that the unlawfulness of the conduct was readily apparent to [Officer Stephens], notwithstanding the lack of fact-specific case law.” Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1355 (quoting Lee, 284 F.3d at 1199, internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). Summary judgment in favor of Defendants is

A: holding that no objectively reasonable police officer could believe that after vinyard was under arrest handcuffed behind her back secured in the back seat of a patrol car with a protective screen between the officer and the arrestee an officer could stop the car grab such arrestee by her hair and arm bruise her and apply pepper spray to try to stop the intoxicated arrestee from screaming and returning the officers exchange of obscenities and insults during a short fourmile jail ride
B: holding that the fourth amendment sets the applicable constitutional limitations on the treatment of an arrestee detained without a warrant up until the time such arrestee is released or found to be legally in custody based upon probable cause for arrest
C: holding that search of car was not incident to arrest where arrestee had exited and locked car before he was approached by officer and then arrested
D: holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm  escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and  placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment
A.