Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): two years experience as patrol officers. An officer’s experience is taken into consideration in determining if there was reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. See United States v. Carter, 1999 WL 1007044, at *3-4. 13 . The Government argues that under the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), McCray was not seized until he was actually subdued by the officers. Hodari D., held that seizure under the Fourth Amendment requires either 1) physical force applied by the police on the suspect; or 2) submission by the suspect to the officer’s authority. See id. at 626-627 n. 3, 111 S.Ct. 1547. The court agrees and determines that McCray was not seized until he was tackled by the officers. 14 . 443 U.S. at 52, 99 S.Ct. 2637 (<HOLDING>). 15 . McCray's statements will be suppressed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the forceable stop at issue was an investigatory stop rather than an arrest (B) holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop (C) holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop (D) holding that an areas reputation for criminal activity alone cannot justify an investigatory stop (E) holding there was no reasonable suspicion which would justify an investigatory stop despite report of a domestic disturbance
Output (English): holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop