Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that the officer’s observation of Kaigler sitting in his car was an insufficient basis for establishing a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity — in other words, that the stop was-illegal. After the trial court ordered the cocaine suppressed, defense counsel argued that the other two counts should be-dismissed because the State could no longer prove a statutory element of each of these charges: that the officer was “in the lawful execution of any legal duty,” § 843.01 (resisting with violence), or “engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties,” § 784.07(2) (battery of a law enforcement officer). The court’s denial of the motion to dismiss these remaining counts forms the basis of this appeal. Narrowly stated, the question p an v. State, 807 So.2d 106, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA) (<HOLDING>), review granted, 835 So.2d 271 (Fla.2002). But 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had (B) holding that while the state must prove that the alleged victim was a law enforcement officer who was engaged in the lawful execution or performance of a legal duty the technical illegality of that action does not justify resisting with violence or battering the officer (C) holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial (D) holding that an officer or employee of the tennessee valley authority was not an officer or employee acting under the authority of the united states or any department or any officer of the government thereof within the meaning of a criminal statute first enacted in 1884 (E) holding police officer who was shot by occupier of premises could not recover from premises owner for injuries the officer should have reasonably expected to sustain while engaged in the line of duty
Output (English): holding that an officer or employee of the tennessee valley authority was not an officer or employee acting under the authority of the united states or any department or any officer of the government thereof within the meaning of a criminal statute first enacted in 1884