With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". To prevail, plaintiffs must also show that, under clearly established law, exigent circumstances did not exist such as to justify the officers’ forcible entry into Bubenhofer’s apartment, and that Sizemore reasonably should have known this. Plaintiffs fail to cite a single case indicating that an officer’s attempt to rescue what that officer believes to be a suicidal person does not constitute exigent circumstances, nor are we aware of such precedent. Although the fact that Sizemore may have violated established police procedure certainly makes our task more difficult, the Supreme Court has indicated that the violation of established procedure alone is insufficient to overcome a qualified immunity claim. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3019, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (<HOLDING>). We conclude, therefore, that the district

A: holding that officials sued for constitutional violations do not lose qualified immunity simply because their actions violate statutory or administrative procedure
B: holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law
C: holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law
D: recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations
A.