With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Humbert. It was only - after Tan. received the reports that he learned from the victim herself that she could not identify Hum-bert and she refused to testify. Because the Officers withheld such substantial information from- Tan,- he maintained the criminal proceedings against Humbert without any proper basis. To be sure, once Tan finally possessed this information, he entered a nolle prosequi: Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to Hum-bert, his criminal proceedings and pretrial detention also violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Put differently, the Officers caused legal process to be instituted and maintained against him'without probable cause to believe that he committed a crime. See Manuel v. City of Joliet, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 911, 918, 197 L.Ed.2d 312 (2017) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that the evidence

A: holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause
B: holding that the limits of fourth amendment protection relate to the boundary between arrest and pretrial detention
C: holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same
D: holding that pretrial detention resulting from legal process unsupported by probable cause violates the fourth amendment
D.