With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proceedings, the dismissal was denied, and the respondent waited until after trial to challenge the denial — that makes the issue one of first impression. As to the issue raised by the first rephrased certified question, the First District held that a respondent who would have been released but for the detention under the Act and who was not tried within the thirty-day deadline waives his or her claim if he or she does not seek relief by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus prior to trial. At the outset, we note that it is well established that a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the expiration of the thirty-day deadline and, upon denial of that motion, seek pretrial relief by filing a petition for habeas corpus. See Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217, 221-22 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). As this Court explained in Mmray: The State

A: holding that because the real id act created a remedy as broad in scope as a habeas petition the act is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
B: holding   2241 is the proper avenue by which to challenge pretrial detention
C: holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
D: recognizing that habeas corpus is a proper means to challenge the legality of pretrial detention under the jimmy ryce act
D.