With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to change this analysis. The Court cannot infer from this general stipulated “fact” that Rodriguez knew or should have known that the Delaware State Police at Troop 3 videotaped conversations of married couples (or at least of Rodriguez and Howard) held in its interview room, if even such videotaping was a regular practice at Troop 3. No facts were developed at the hearing that Rodriguez either knew or should have known of any such police policy. 18 . See generally Eric H. Miller, Annotation, Permissible Warrantless Surveillance, Under State Communications Interception Statute, by State or Local Law Enforcement Officer or One Acting in Concern with Officer, 27 A.L.R.4th 449 § 3 (citations omitted). 19 . See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 765, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Albarado, 2nd Cir., 495 F.2d 799, 804

A: holding that questions of reasonableness depend upon the facts and circumstances  the total atmosphere of the case citation omitted  which must be viewed in the light of established fourth amendment principles
B: holding that qualified immunity turns upon the objective legal reasonableness of the officers action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken internal quotation marks and citation omitted
C: holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment
D: holding that determination of whether right is clearly established must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case
A.