With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Carroll v. City of Portland, 736 A.2d 279, 283 (Me.1999) (“[A] ministerial act is mandatory and requires no personal judgment or choice.”) (emphasis in original). It is undisputed that Wing accompanied Desrosiers at Desrosiers’ request to Santoni’s residence where Santoni was arrested and then transported by Wing and Desrosiers to the Somerset County Sheriffs Department. Based on these facts, the district court appropriately concluded that Wing was aware of the outstanding arrest warrant and had a legal duty to execute it. Desrosiers’ presence at the arrest, for the purpose of assisting Wing in the execution of the warrant, did not render that arrest unlawful under state law or constitutionally infirm. Cf. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (<HOLDING>). For the first time on appeal, Santoni argues

A: holding that it is a violation of the fourth amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant
B: holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment
C: holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties
D: holding that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances a law enforcement officer must procure a search warrant before searehing for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party
A.