Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm. The district court properly granted defendants judgment as a matter of law because the police officers could have reasonably believed that their conduct in detaining Annan-Yartey was lawful where they had probable cause to believe that Annan-Yartey broke the law. See Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1026 (9th Cir.1996). Similarly, the district court did not err in finding that Annan-Yartey’s detention for almost one hour was reasonable given the fact that the police had to issue two citations to Annan-Yartey, Annan-Yartey’s own actions delayed the investigation, and the police had to verify the bicycle’s serial number with a dispatcher. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Annan-Yartey’s remaining contentions lack 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that determination of whether a detention is too long to be justified as an investigative stop must take into consideration whether the police diligently pursued their investigation during the time it was necessary to detain defendant (B) recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest (C) holding that an officers diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop (D) holding investigative detention occurred when officer after initial inquiry exited vehicle and approached defendant because officer chose to escalate the encounter to afford greater investigation which of course is consistent with the purpose of an investigative detention (E) holding that police may briefly detain individuals for further investigation during a traffic stop as long as they can establish the reasonableness of the detention
Output (English): holding investigative detention occurred when officer after initial inquiry exited vehicle and approached defendant because officer chose to escalate the encounter to afford greater investigation which of course is consistent with the purpose of an investigative detention