Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): goals and policies of the penal institution limits these retained constitutional rights.”); Katz, 389 U.S. at 353, 359, 88 S.Ct. 507 (The Katz Court concluded that where the government electronically listened to and recorded the defendant’s conversations while he used a public telephone, the actions of the government violated the defendant’s privacy, and the constitutional standards of the Fourth Amendment. This case included no evidence that the defendant received notice or any indication that his calls would be monitored or recorded.); In the Matter of An Anonymous Member of the S.C. Bar, 404 S.E.2d at 514 (ruling that an attorney shall not record the conversation of any person without the prior knowledge and consent of all parties to the conversation); Forrester, 541 S.E.2d at 843 (<HOLDING>). In sum, all of the aforementioned cases are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence was inadmissible because it was not within the scope of defendants oral preseizure consent to a cursory visual inspection and the seizure was conducted prior to not pursuant to the defendants written consent to conduct a complete search (B) holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept (C) holding that a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure (D) holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession  for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent (E) holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car
Output (English): holding that evidence was inadmissible because it was not within the scope of defendants oral preseizure consent to a cursory visual inspection and the seizure was conducted prior to not pursuant to the defendants written consent to conduct a complete search