Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): cause to believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to search an upstairs bedroom, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. Probable cause to believe that a container placed in the trunk of a taxi contains contraband or evidence does not justify a search of the entire cab. Ross, 456 U.S. at 824, 102 S.Ct. 2157 (emphasis added); see Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 269, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (acknowledging that “the Carroll doctrine does not declare a field day for the police in searching automobiles. Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.”); cf. Ross, 456 U.S. at 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157 (<HOLDING>). Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the scope of a search under the carroll doctrine is no broader and no narrower than a magistrate could legitimately authorize by warrant (B) holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate (C) holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within (D) holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises (E) holding warrant describing items to be seized as a twostory blue house invalid where petitioner did not alert the magistrate to the defect  and the court therefore cannot know whether the magistrate was aware of the scope of the search he was authorizing
Output (English): holding warrant describing items to be seized as a twostory blue house invalid where petitioner did not alert the magistrate to the defect  and the court therefore cannot know whether the magistrate was aware of the scope of the search he was authorizing