Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): contained no other occupants. Following Calloway’s detention, Calloway volunteered that he had marijuana in the house, and his mother authorized a search of the house — during which the officers found the marijuana (with Calloway’s assistance), and also located a firearm in Calloway’s bedroom (on a top shelf, in a closet, between shirts). The officers testified that the residence was located in a high crime area. In denying Calloway’s motion to suppress, the trial judge seems to have found that the officers’ initial action of ordering all occupants out of the house and cuffing Calloway was justified based upon Callo-way’s “flight” (back into the house) upon seeing the officers “in a high crime area.” See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000) (<HOLDING>). There are at least two problems with applying 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that flight from police can help establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop (B) holding that unprovoked flight is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such (C) holding that a defendants unprovoked flight upon noticing the police in a highcrime area was suggestive of wrongdoing and therefore provided reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory detention (D) holding that in a high crime area unprovoked headlong flight from police can form the basis for reasonable suspicion under terry (E) holding defendants unprovoked flight from area of heavy narcotic trafficking after noticing uniformed officers provided reasonable suspicion to detain and stating headlong flight wherever it occurs  is the consummate act of evasion it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such
Output (English): holding that unprovoked flight is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such