Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): sweep of the house. During this sweep, the police noticed two weapons and a marihuana growth set-up. Once police saw this, they withdrew from the premises to obtain either a warrant or consent for a more thorough search. But for appellant’s warrantless seizure, police would not have conducted the protective sweep, which led to the discovery of the items for which the police ultimately sought consent to search. The second factor favors appellant. The third factor is more problematic. Courts usually do not deem police misconduct as “flagrant” unless the illegal conduct was engaged in for the purpose of obtaining consent, or the police misconduct was calculated to cause surprise or fear. Id., (citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 605, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2262, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Garcia v. State, 3 S.W.3d 227, 243 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct (B) holding that police misconduct had a quality of purposefulness and was calculated to cause surprise fright and confusion (C) holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry (D) holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred (E) holding that the prosecution must establish a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means that the leads making the discovery inevitable were possessed by the police prior to the misconduct and that the police were actively pursuing the alternate line of investigation prior to the misconduct
Output (English): holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry