Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): police encountered the defendant in front of a location known for drug trafficking. Id. Arnold appeared startled when he saw the police and hurried into a nightclub. Id. Police followed him into the club and saw Arnold attempting to hide a matchbox behind a machine. Id. The police testified Arnold had a prior arrest for cocaine and that matchboxes are commonly used to carry drugs. Id. While noting Arnold’s location, his actions upon seeing the police, and police knowledge of Arnold’s association with drugs, the court highlighted his concealment of the matchbox in concluding there was probable cause: Most importantly, the officer’s suspicions [about drugs in the matchbox] were confirmed when he saw appellant trying to hide or dispose of the matchbox behind the game machine. U 1982) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion In the present case, the facts 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendants entry into the foyer of a fraternity house was an entry into a dwelling (B) holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence state has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative (C) holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry (D) holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry (E) holding that as part of showing that a warrantless entry was imperative the government must demonstrate that a warrant could not have been obtained in time even by telephone under the procedure authorized by fedrcrimp 41c2
Output (English): holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry