With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, when three years later Pitcher submitted an affidavit in support of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, she reported a different version of her conversation with Young — one in which Young told her that "in her professional opinion Rachel Stecks's report was ... true and ... that she had a real fear for the safety of the Wallis children.” The two divergent accounts of this telephone conversation, as offered by Pitcher, in themselves create a question of fact and of credibility that can only be resolved by the jury. Moreover, even if Pitcher's most recent account is accurate, whether this conversation supplied sufficient objective facts and information to justify the seizure is a question of fact for the jury. See McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Once again, Pitcher's testimony has

A: holding that advising police officers as to existence of probable cause in particular case was not protected by absolute immunity
B: holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury
C: holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a  1983 claim alleging false arrest
D: holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question
D.