With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". dated July 23, 2004 that he was arrested by a non-uniformed officer he met with as a result of telephoning the Warrant Unit of the New York City Police Department. Lewis Aff. ¶ 10-11. He does not allege that he was arrested by Agent Mueller. At the time of Plaintiffs arrest, Agent Mueller avers, without dispute, that he was involved in a trial outside of New York and was therefore not present for Plaintiffs arrest. Mueller Decl. ¶ 8. Because Plaintiff has not asserted otherwise, I must find that Agent Mueller was not present at the arrest and thus is entitled to summary judgment on the claim. Furthermore, the warrant pursuant to which Mr. Lewis was arrested was issued by a neutral magistrate, automatically inuring Agent Mueller with qualified immunity. See Golino, 950 F.2d at 870 (<HOLDING>). For Plaintiff to challenge that immunity, he

A: holding that a plaintiff must show his belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented
B: holding that an officers mistaken belief that the defendant was speeding was not an objectively reasonable purpose for a traffic stop
C: holding that a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate creates presumption that officers belief in probable cause was objectively reasonable
D: holding that evidence should not be suppressed if police officers acted in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate
C.