With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". apprehend the suspect outweighed a clear risk of harm to the public in continuing the pursuit.” Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 656. Because review is based on what a reasonably prudent officer could have believed, courts are not concerned with the individual officer’s state of mind. Wadewitz, 951 S.W.2d at 466. Courts do, however, consider the information possessed by the officer in question at the time the incident occurred. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 656. . In determining whether official immunity applies, courts , do not consider evidence concerning whether the officer in.question was actually negligent. City of Fort Worth v. Robinson, 300 S.W.3d 892, 899-900 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.); see also Harris Cty. v. Garza, 971 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 655 (“The complex

A: holding that bad faith includes lack of good faith in investigating the facts of a complaint
B: holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error
C: holding determination of good faith renders finding of negligence immaterial
D: holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law
C.