With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a genuine dispute as to the placement of a GPS device on his vehicle, the defendants personally involved in that action would be entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “did not violate clearly established law, or ... it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law.” Russo v. City of Bridgeport, 479 F.3d 196, 211 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 2000, when the alleged conduct occurred, it was not “clearly established” that the warrantless placement of a GPS device on the vehicle of a parolee subject to electronic monitoring would violate the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251, 261-62 (2d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Victory asserts no other colorable challenge

A: holding police officers warrantless placement of gps on defendants vehicle in 2009 fell within the goodfaith exception to exclusionary rule because such conduct was objectively reasonable under united states v knotts 460 us 276 103 sct 1081 75 led2d 55 1983
B: recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule
C: holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid
D: holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule
A.