With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". any modification of the consent decree should be barred pursuant to the “continuous violation” doctrine. Under that doctrine, a defendant to a contempt proceeding may not challenge the validity of the underlying injunction as a defense to violating that injunction. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 318-19, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967). Or, more simply, parties have a duty to comply with an ongoing injunction until it is dissolved. To illustrate, if the plaintiff had brought a contempt action against the defendants, focusing on retrospective, instead of pro- spective, relief, the “continuous violation” doctrine would have defeated any defense that focused solely on the validity of the underlying injunction. See, e.g., Kindred v. Duckworth, 9 F.3d 638, (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). But the plaintiff has not brought a contempt

A: holding that regardless of the subjective belief of the insured the record established a basis to believe that the insured had committed an act that could give rise to a claim under the policy
B: holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics
C: holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action
D: holding that the implementation of a policy that violated a consent decree could give rise to contempt proceedings
D.