With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — a reference that is in tension with Olson. Compare Crider, 885 F.2d at 296 with Olson, 546 U.S. at 46, 126 S.Ct. 510 ("the [FTCA] requires a court to look to the state-law liability of private entities, not to that of public entities.”). However, we then held, consistent with Olson, that we "must disregard state rales of sovereign or official immunity in analyzing the scope of FTCA liability, because these conflict with Congress’s analogy to 'private person’ liability ...." Crider, 885 F.2d at 296. Based on this holding, we determined that because neither a state law enforcement officer nor a private person would have had a duty to the plaintiff to detain a drunk driver, the park rangers also had no such duty, and thus the Government was not liable under the 007 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, the record shows that Villafranca was

A: holding that detaining club patrons in handcuffs for three hours after subjecting them to strip searches and warrant checks was unlawful
B: holding that there was not arguable probable cause to conduct extensive searches on night club and its patrons where only evidence was of one patron selling drugs
C: holding unconstitutional city policy of subjecting all females arrested and detained to strip and visual body cavity searches
D: holding that search warrant for tavern and its bartender did not permit body searches of all bars patrons
A.