Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to reasonably deduce that criminal activity is afoot. The same is true with regard to the corroboration of an anonymous tip. While the indi-cia used as corroboration needed not be per se criminal, they must still be sufficient to permit one to reasonably deduce that appellant engaged in the misconduct for which he was accused by the tipster. If it does not, then the tip cannot be said to be reliable. Given the record developed below, one cannot reasonably deduce from appellant’s mere use of the driveway of a closed business to turn-around late at night and his failure to then speed away that he had previously drove down the road illegally. Thus, that aspect of the anonymous tip accusing appellant of engaging in misconduct was not sufficiently corroborated, see Stewart v. State, supra (<HOLDING>), and the tip was not shown to be reliable. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court properly suppressed evidence where officer did not possess articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect that defendant violated motor vehicle code the officer did not see defendant drive erratically commit a traffic violations or engage in any conduct indicating that he was under the influence of alcohol (B) holding that although the investigation of the traffic offense that served as the basis for the stop was complete when the officer issued the citation the officers continued detention of the appellant thereafter for a canine search was lawful because during the investigation of the traffic offense the officer had developed a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed a drugrelated offense (C) holding that the state failed to sufficiently corroborate the tip where the officer did not see appellant drive erratically or commit a traffic offense (D) holding that in an arson case there must be other proof that the offense was committed to corroborate a confession by the defendant (E) holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle
Output (English): holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle