With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". confined Fagan to its facts: a substantive due process claim resulting from a police pursuit. By contrast, both this case and Heller involve primarily a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Grazier ex rel. White v. City of Philadelphia, 328 F.3d 120, 124 (3d Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted). See also, Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1153 (3d Cir.1995) (“[T]he Fagan panel opinion appeared to hold that a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation predicate to a claim of municipal liability simply by demonstrating that the policymakers, acting with deliberate indifference, enacted an inadequate policy that caused an injury. It appears that, by focusing almost exclusively on the ‘deliberate indiffere Twp. of Lower Merion, 114 F.Supp.2d 372, 377 (E.D.Pa.2000) (<HOLDING>). See also Willard v. Pennsylvania Soc. for the

A: holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights
B: holding that if the actions of the officer did not reach the level of a constitutional tort the township through its police department cannot be liable because of an inadequate policy or ineffective training program and noting marks criticism of fagan
C: holding that allegations that training was inadequate  the inadequate training constituted deliberate indifference  and the risk of constitutional injury as a result of such deliberate indifference  is very obvious were a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action and were mere conclusions that did not without additional facts state a claim for failuretotrain liability
D: holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records
B.