Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and his fellow Thunderguards members to leave the hall and provide them with identification, a reasonable person would not have felt free to simply ignore the police presence.”); State’s May 12, 2011 Answering Supplemental Memorandum, at 1 ("Outside [the banquet hall], the encounter became less-than-consensual”). 19 . See Weddington v. State, 545 A.2d 607, 612 (Del.1988). 20 . Scheets, 188 F.3d at 836-37. 21 . Id. 22 .Title 24, chapter 13 does not impose criminal sanctions for the unauthorized delivery of private security services. Rather, the Delaware Board of Examiners of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies has the power to impose a civil penalty up to $200 per day, for each violation. 24 Del. C. § 1311. See also Rickards v. State, 2011 WL 153643, at *1 (Del.2011) (<HOLDING>). Rickards is arguably distinguishable because 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation (B) holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot (C) recognizing that police officer may stop a suspect if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot (D) holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring (E) holding that if an officer possesses an objectively reasonable suspicion that a traffic offense has been committed the officer may request identifying information from the driver
Output (English): holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot