Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): pursuant to a lawful warrant that the police obtained in the interim with information that was unrelated to the war-rantless entry. The Court refused to suppress the evidence, not because of a lack of causal relationship to the conduct of the search, but because the search was lawful in every respect. The search was conducted pursuant to what the Court determined to be a lawful warrant and was conducted in a lawful manner. See id. at 813-14, 104 S.Ct. 3380. The attenuation applied only to the 19-hour-old initial entry. Here, of course, the entire point is that the search that produced the seized evidence was con ducted with excessive force and was, accordingly, unlawful. Third, United States v. Hector, 474 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.2007), does not compel the majority’s holding. Id. at 1154-55 (<HOLDING>). If officers violate their obligation to serve 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence obtained from a search made subsequent to an illegal stop was admissible when before the search the police officer discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant and the defendant was thereupon arrested pursuant to that warrant (B) holding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for officers failure to serve a warrant to the defendant before during or immediately after the search (C) holding that violation of knockandannounce rule during execution of valid search warrant warranted suppression of evidence seized in search following violation (D) holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression (E) holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation
Output (English): holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation