With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". admissible in evidence”). 29 . Admittedly, this inference is weak in light of the fact that the Mejias have provided no explanation of why Airborne’s Bezmen would vouch for the existence of such a call on behalf of the other defendants. (See, e.g., Luis Mejia Dep. at 351 ("I don’t know what was going on between them and Brenda Tipton. For all I know, they were having an affair. Who, God knows what was going on.”).) Still, the weakness of the inference that there was no call from "Luis” to Airborne is ultimately immaterial, for, as detailed below, a reasonable juror could conclude that probable cause was lacking at the time of the arrest even if there was such a call. 30 . See supra note 5 and accompanying text. 31 . Airborne's characteriza d 397, 405-06 (7th Cir.1993) (pre-Richardson) (<HOLDING>); Rodrigues v. Furtado, 950 F.2d 805, 815 (1st

A: holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine
B: holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court
C: holding that private psychiatric facility that had been involved in emergency involuntary detention and treatment of arrestee pursuant to state court order was entitled to assert qualified immunity in light of policy considerations that underlie doctrine
D: holding that a private physician contracting with a county psychiatric hospital was liable as a state actor but was not entitled to qualified immunity
C.