Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a pure propensity theory: the principal’s evidence showed that Klink-hammer was an aggressive person in general, and that made it more likely that Klinkhammer acted aggressively during the June 29 traffic stop. Like federal courts, Wisconsin largely excludes propensity evidence. Wis. Stat. § 904.04(1); Fed. R.Evid. 404(a)(1). But, also like federal courts, Wisconsin makes an exception if the character evidence is offered by the accused in a criminal case in order to prove “a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime.” Wis. Stat. § 904.04(l)(b); accord Fed.R.Evid. 404(a)(2)(B). Hanson accordingly argued that, within the meaning of the Wisconsin rule, Klink-hammer was a “victim” of Hanson’s conduct. Cf State v. Haase, 293 Wis.2d 322, 330, 716 N.W.2d 526 (Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). The trial court rejected Hanson’s theory. It 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation (B) recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer (C) holding police officer is a public official (D) holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown (E) holding that where the defendant eluded a police officer and caused damage to a squad car the officer was a victim for purposes of restitution
Output (English): holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown