Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): if the defendant did not intend to return the vehicle, then a loss calculation based on the market value of the vehicle is warranted. The sentencing court may properly infer such intent if the defendant is indifferent or reckless with respect to the owner’s recovery of the vehicle. “[I]t has long been the case that ‘if one takes another’s property intending to use it recklessly and then abandon it, the obstacles to its safe return are such that the taker possesses the required intent to steal.’ ” United States v. Cruz-Santiago, 12 F.Sd 1, 2 (1st Cir.1993) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1853, 128 L.Ed.2d 477 (1994) (deciding robbery case and quoting LaFave & Scott, supra, § 8.5, at 360-61); see also State v. Piscattano, 32 Conn.Supp. 649, 352 A.2d 783, 785 (Ct.App.Sess.1976) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. State, 804 S.W.2d 566, 570 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause (B) holding that the factfinder may conclude that recovery is not likely when the car is left on street with keys in the car (C) holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search (D) holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car (E) holding car lessee specifically contracted with car lessor for liability for any and all loss or damage to rental car thus barring recovery from insurer under exclusion for liability assumed by contract
Output (English): holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause