With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims that they knowingly suppressed exculpatory evidence. See Reid v. New Hampshire, 56 F.3d 332, 336-37 (1st Cir.1995) (citations omitted) (applying absolute immunity rule to claim that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence i Cignetti’s conspiracy allegations nevertheless fail because the record is devoid of either direct or circumstantial evidence of an agreement. Finally, Cignetti’s reliance on Gonsalves v. City of New Bedford, 939 F.Supp. 921 (D.Mass.1996), for the proposition that prosecutors who engage in a cover-up of their own improper conduct or the improper conduct' of others are not entitled to absolute immunity is misplaced. Gon-salves deals only with claims against police officers and has absolutely nothing to do with the immunity of prosecutors. 939 F.Supp. at 925 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in Reid v. New Hampshire, 56 F.3d

A: holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983
B: holding that a  1983 cause of action lies where police officers as opposed to prosecutors engaged in an intentional coverup thereby depriving a person of the right to recover for constitutional violations
C: holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury
D: holding that an action for specific performance lies in equity
B.