With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". failing to register his Belize address as his primary address—even if that belief was mistaken'—-was objectively reasonable. See Malley, 475 U.S. at 344-45, 106 S.Ct. 1092 (“Only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable, will the shield of immunity be lost.” (internal citation omitted)); Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 832 (8th Cir.2008) (“Officers may also be entitled to qualified immunity if they arrest a suspect under the mistaken belief that they have probable cause to do so, provided that the mistake is objectively reasonable.”). Saterdalen argues that minimal further investigation by Rikhus would have revealed that Saterdalen had met his reporting requirements. See Kuehl, 173 F.3d at 650-51 (<HOLDING>). According to his appellate brief, Saterdalen

A: holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
B: holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity
C: holding under facts presented that probation officer was entitled to at least qualified immunity
D: holding that an officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from suit when a minimal further investigation would have exonerated the suspect
D.