With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". county, or to seek assistance from the neighboring county’s Sheriff, even though they knew the exact address of his employer, and they never called the plaintiff to inform her that her ex-husband had not been served. Id. About two weeks after the protective order issued, the plaintiffs ex-husband broke into her home and shot her several times. Id. She survived, and sued the county on, among other theories, a state-created-danger theory, due to the deputies’ failure to serve her ex-husband with the protective order. Id. at 430. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, reaffirming that only affirmative acts on the part of a county can give rise to such liability; the fact that blatant inaction incre L.Ed.2d 704 (1999); Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1118, 118 S.Ct. 1796,

A: holding that where a mother had established a place of residence for her pregnant daughter and her daughters boyfriend and loaned the daughter her car where the daughter had allowed the boyfriend to use the car and the boyfriend was the one who maintained and serviced the car and where the mother had seen the boyfriend driving the car without telling him not to that the boyfriend had implied permission to use the car the court found that the evidence demonstrated implied permission through the relationship between the parties and the course of conduct
B: holding that where officers order an individual under threat of arrest into the car of her obviously inebriated boyfriend and shortly thereafter she is killed when her boyfriend wrecks his car on an interstate highway a  1983 claim can be pursued against the state on a statecreateddanger theory of liability
C: holding that where officers release an inebriated individual from custody on a dark busy highway against his will and the individual is subsequently struck by a car a  1983 claim can be pursued against the state on a statecreateddanger theory of liability
D: holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door
B.