Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): who simply in structs a pedestrian to “hold up” does not, without more, commit a seizure of that pedestrian. The instruction “hold up” is a request to stop. By itself, a request to stop, even when issued by a uniformed police officer, would not communicate to a reasonable person that he or she was not free to simply ignore the officer’s request and keep walking. Other states that, like Tennessee, have rejected the Hodari D. standard on state constitutional grounds, have concluded that similar encounters do not constitute a seizure. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stoute, 422 Mass. 782, 665 N.E.2d 93, 98 (1996) (acknowledging no seizure occurred when officer initially asked defendant to “hold up a minute”); People v. Bora, 83 N.Y.2d 531, 611 N.Y.S.2d 796, 634 N.E.2d 168, 170-71 (1994) (<HOLDING>). While the language and conduct expressed by 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the police roadblock was intended to stop brower by physical impact and did so a seizure occurred (B) holding that defendant was not free to leave when officer directed defendant to stay while he conducted a warrants check (C) holding no seizure occurred when after defendant began to walk away officer directed him to stop (D) holding a seizure occurs when a passenger of a car is hit by a bullet that is meant to stop him (E) holding that no seizure occurred where shots were fired at a truck but did not hit the suspect because they failed to produce a stop
Output (English): holding that no seizure occurred where shots were fired at a truck but did not hit the suspect because they failed to produce a stop