Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): first, Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we will begin with the question whether the troopers violated Quick’s Fourth Amendment rights. A The Fourth Amendment safeguards “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures.” To prevail on a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, a plaintiff must show that a seizure occurred and that it was unreasonable under the circumstances. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 599, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395-96, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). There is no dispute that the troopers “seized” Quick when they shot and killed him. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The question, instead, is whether the seizure 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded (B) holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon (C) holding that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure (D) holding the time frame is crucial and evaluating reasonableness of officers use of deadly force at the time of the seizure irrespective of their prior unreasonable conduct in creating the circumstances (E) holding the use of deadly force standing alone does not constitute a seizure and absent an actual physical restraint or physical seizure the alleged unreasonableness of the officers conduct cannot serve as a basis for a  1983 cause of action
Output (English): holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon