With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. In his pro se complaint, Berge named Estherville Law Enforcement Center (ELEC) Investigator Greg VanLangen, ELEC Sergeant Brett Shatto, ELEC Chief Eric Milburn, and Emmet County Sheriff Larry Lamack. He alleged that VanLangen arrested him based on evidence “that was false and unconstitutionally acquired,” that the evidence was derived from “a non-testimonial identification procedure,” and that VanLangen filed a sworn affidavit which contained false information received from a confidential informant, which led to Berge’s arrest, all in violation of Iowa state laws and the F -12 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 494-95 (8th Cir.

A: holding that search warrant which was lacking sufficient description of premises and did not have affidavit attached was not fatally defective when read together with affidavit and when one of officers executing warrant was affiant
B: holding that it was clearly established for  1983 purposes that an arrest founded upon a recalled warrant violates the fourth amendment
C: holding allegation that false affidavit was basis for arrest warrant is sufficient to state  1983 fourth amendment claim against affiant officer
D: holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under  1983 because it violates the fourth amendment
C.