Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and considering the totality of the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that they do not constitute reasonable suspicion for continuing to detain Garcia and Machacek. 1. Previous Arrests “Although a prior criminal history cannot alone establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to support a detention or an arrest, it is permissible to consider such a fact as part of the total calculus of information in these determinations.” Burrell v. McIlroy, 464 F.3d 853, 858 n.3 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the Ninth Circuit has not explicitly addressed whether arrests, without accompanying convictions, may be considered in the reasonable suspicion calculus, it has implicitly found them to be relevant. See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 603 Fed.Appx. 620, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>). Here, Detective Schaffner’s records check 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that probable cause to stop a vehicle was supported by the fact that the defendant had previously been arrested for illegally transporting liquor (B) holding in an  unpublished opinion that information that the registered owner of a vehicle had previously been arrested for smuggling and was involved in a smugglingrelated seizure along with information that a border patrol alert had been issued regarding one of the passengers in the vehicle was relevant and probative to the reasonable suspicion analysis (C) holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a vehicle stop where official license and registration records reflected that the vehicle was registered to a driver with a revoked license (D) holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search (E) holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity
Output (English): holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search