Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): informant’s relation to the crime. Landano, 508 U.S. at 172, 113 S.Ct. 2014 (“A source is confidential within the meaning of Exemption 7(D) if the source ‘provided information ... in circumstances from which an assurance [of confidentiality] could be reasonably inferred.’ ”) (internal citation omitted); Amuso v. DOJ, 600 F.Supp.2d 78, 100 (D.D.C.2009) (“[t]he nature of the crime investigated and [sic] informant’s relation to it are the most important factors in determining whether implied confidentiality exists.”). “Violence and risk of retaliation attendant to drug trafficking warrant an implied grant of confidentiality to a soured who provides information to investigators.” Lasko v. DOJ, 684 F.Supp.2d 120, 134 (D.D.C.2010); see also Mendoza v. DEA, 465 F.Supp.2d 5, 13 (D.D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>). Notably, Lasko and 'Mendoza and other cases 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony about the structure of drug trafficking organizations because the testimony portrayed the defendant as a member of such an organization and implied the defendant knew the drugs were in his vehicle (B) holding five expert opinions by two government agents and the confidential informant regarding the operations and methods of drug trafficking not impermissible profile evidence because it was not offered for that purpose (C) recognizing the inherent danger in stopping those suspected of drug trafficking for which guns are known tools of the trade (D) recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking (E) holding that because violence and danger are inherent in drug trafficking activity the court can reasonably infer that the informant cooperated under an implied assurance of confidentiality
Output (English): recognizing the inherent danger in stopping those suspected of drug trafficking for which guns are known tools of the trade