With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — further argue in favor of such a result. See Watson, 3 So. at 441; Firestone, 38 N.W. at 886; McMahan, 34 Vt. at-, 1861 WL 3365. On the other hand, at some point, even private citizens untrained in the niceties of probable cause must be presumed to know that a particular arrest is without justification or that a course of action in effecting an arrest is patently abusive. A proper balancing of § 1983’s protective purpose and the strong policy considerations in favor of recognizing qualified immunity, thus, suggests that the appropriate standard for gauging the objective reasonableness of a private defendant’s belief is that of the reasonable private citizen in the defendant’s position, rather than that of the reasonable law enforcement official. Cf., e.g., Rodrigues, 950 F.2d at 816 (<HOLDING>). The facts necessary to establish the

A: holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance
B: holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician
C: holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983
D: recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician
B.