With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". dispute, then, is whether Deputy Johnson acted in good faith. The Supreme Court of Texas has held that good faith is evaluated with a “the countervailing public safety concerns.” Wadewitz, 951 S.W.2d at 467. The public safety concerns include consideration of “the nature and severity of harm that the officer’s actions could cause (including injuries to bystanders ...), the likelihood that any harm would occur, and whether any risk of harm would be clear to a reasonably prudent officer.” Id. “[A]n officer in a police pursuit must assess both the risk that the suspect will injure a third party and the risk that the officer himself will injure a third party.” Clark, 38 S.W.3d at 583 (emphasis in original). A police pursuit usually entails rapidly changing circumstances. See id. at 582 (<HOLDING>). It follows, then, that determination of the

A: holding that a tip is corroborated when given in circumstances under which the informant is unlikely to lie because a falsehood would likely be discovered in short order and favors falsely curried would dissipate rapidly
B: holding that changing the date and amount of the larceny under the circumstances of that case changed the identity of the offense
C: holding both emergency responses and police pursuits may involve rapidly changing circumstances
D: holding that police officers may enter a home without a warrant or consent under the emergency assistance doctrine when police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property
C.