With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". them to believe their acts did not violate [Mr. Seitz’s] rights.” Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 648 (2d Cir.1994). The Supreme Court has held that qualified immunity attaches not only when the police officer acted reasonably and thus did not violate an established constitutional right, but also when he reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate that right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1967) (“The relevant question ... is the objective (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the officer’s warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.”); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The second Circuit has referred to an

A: holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim
B: holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force
C: holding that a defendant charged with voluntary manslaughter would be entitled to an acquittal on the ground of selfdefense if he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force
D: holding that an officers use of force against a plaintiff was objectively reasonable considering the force the plaintiff herself exercised in resisting police custody
B.