Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): had a legitimate concern that additional undiscovered parties were present and reasonably acted to protect the officers’ safety. Given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have thought that she would be free to leave after brief questioning. The appellants contend, however, that the length of the detention transformed an otherwise lawful stop into an arrest. The officers had determined that Ward and Roller were unarmed and that there were no additional suspects within the bank, but the officers did not un-handcuff them until they had verified their story 20 minutes later. Although 20 minutes is not an exceedingly long time, it is certainly long enough to transform a stop into an arrest, see, e.g., United States v. Chamberlin, 644 F.2d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has refused to adopt a per 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime (B) holding in the alternative that even if handcuffing a suspect did convert the detention into an arrest the arrest was justified by probable cause (C) holding ninety minutes excessive (D) holding that 20 minute detention under the circumstances of the ease was not arrest (E) holding suspect for 20 minutes constituted an arrest
Output (English): holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime