With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 839 (9th Cir.2007). Villafranca’s reliance on Tekle is misplaced since two of the three opinions rendered by the Ninth Circuit in that case actually support the conclusion that the Government can invoke state law enforcement privileges. Tekle, 511 F.3d at 857 (Fisher, J. concurring) {“Olson could be read to support the conclusion that law enforcement privileges should not be recognized in FTCA suits .... [However] the FTCA ... does not clearly foreclose their availability [and the court should not] reach out to construe Olson [as foreclosing those privileges.]”); see also id. at 861 (Kleinfeld, J. concurring) (arguing that the plaintiff had not preserved his FTCA claims on appeal, but if he had, Judge Fisher's concurrence was right on the merits). But see id. at 852-54 (Tashima, J.) (<HOLDING>). On remand, the district court found that law

A: holding that the government was to be treated as a private person and a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the agents exceeded their ability to arrest because while a law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant  given probable cause  a private person may only arrest someone for a crime  committed  in his presence
B: holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person
C: holding that probable cause existed to arrest for trespassing under state law
D: holding that arrest warrant permits police to enter residence of person named therein to make arrest
A.