Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
guided” by the jury verdict on the common law false arrest claims. Thus, the court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the § 1983 false arrest claims. We hold that the district court erred by considering the jury verdict from the common law false arrest claims in its qualified immunity analysis. Hi * * The Supreme Court has held that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); see also Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) . Courts have emphasized that whether a § 1983
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that questions of reasonableness depend upon the facts and circumstances  the total atmosphere of the case citation omitted  which must be viewed in the light of established fourth amendment principles
B. holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted
C. holding that qualified immunity turns upon the objective legal reasonableness of the officers action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken internal quotation marks and citation omitted
D. holding that qualified immunity analysis begins with the court asking whether the plaintiffs allegations if true establish a constitutional violation internal quotation marks omitted
E. holding that qualified immunity applies if either a the defendants action did not violate clearly established law or b it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law internal quotation marks omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.