Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). In this case, plaintiff was formally placed under arrest after she was tackled and brought back to her car. Plaintiff was later found guilty in municipal court for disorderly conduct, battery on a law enforcement officer, and fleeing arrest. Plaintiff appealed her convictions, and the conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer was affirmed. Plaintiffs convictions for disorderly conduct, battery on a law enforcement officer, and fleeing arrest conclusively establish the existence of probable cause for her arrest. Martinez v. City of Albuquerque, 184 F.3d 1123, 1127 (10th Cir.1999). This remains true notwithstanding that plaintiff was found not guilty for disorderly conduct and fleeing arrest on appeal. Mason v. Stock, 955 F.Supp. 1293, 1307 (D.Kan.1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, plaintiffs conviction precludes her 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that probable cause existed to search the defendants residence because the warrant affidavit established probable cause that the defendant possessed stolen firearms and because people generally keep firearms at home or on their persons (B) holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself (C) holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits (D) holding arrest was valid because there was probable cause of cdw even though officer incorrectly believed at the time that he had probable cause of ppw (E) holding that municipal court conviction established that there existed probable cause even though defendant was found not guilty on appeal to the district court
Output (English): holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits