Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): money on him. He then equipped the confidential informant with an audio recording device to record the conversation. Sergeant Brawner and the confidential informant planned a signal for the confidential informant to give if he saw the money. The confidential informant drove to the meeting location. On his way there, the informant talked to Renteria on his cell phone. Renteria told the informant that a police patrol car was in the parking lot. They agreed to meet at a nearby Burger King. The informant notified Sergeant Brawner of the change in location. At the Burger King, the confidential informant went inside with Renteria, Appellan weigh the significance that the meeting place changed, due to a police patrol car being at the original planned location. See Matthews, 431 S.W.3d at 603 (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s other ground for suppressing the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a trial courts bestinterest determination is a subjective assessment based on the totality of circumstances (B) holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule (C) holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances (D) recognizing that district courts finding of reasonable suspicion or probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances is ordinarily accorded deference (E) holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable
Output (English): holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule