Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the circumstances,’ as our cases have understood that phrase. The court appeared to believe that each observation by Stoddard that was by itself readily susceptible to an innocent explanation was entitled to ‘no weight.’ See 232 F.3d, at 1249-1251. Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)], however, precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis. The officer in Terry observed the petitioner and his companions repeatedly walk back and forth, look into a store window, and confer with one another. Although each of the series of acts was ‘perhaps innocent in itself,’ we held that, taken together, they ‘warrant ed further investigation.’ 392 U.S., at 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868. See also [United States v.] Sokolow, [490 U.S. 1], at 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581[, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)] (<HOLDING>).” 534 U.S. at 274-75, 122 S.Ct. at 751. Judge 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement (B) holding that contradictory or implausible travel plans can contribute to a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity (C) holding that factors that ordinarily constitute innocent behavior may provide a composite picture sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion (D) holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion (E) holding that factors which by themselves were quite consistent with innocent travel collectively amounted to reasonable suspicion
Output (English): holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement