Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): found concealed in Holloway’s undergarments should not be suppressed, we REVERSE the district court’s order suppressing that evidence and REMAND this case for trial. 1 . Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 4-6, United States v. Michael Anthony Holloway, No. 91-8044 (5th Cir. filed Apr. 11, 1991) ["Record on Appeal”]. 2 .A seizure may constitute an arrest or merely an investigatory detention, and there is no bright-line rule to distinguish one from the other. We have held that such a determination depends upon the "reasonableness” of the intrusion in light of all the facts. See United States v. Martinez, 808 F.2d 1050, 1053 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1032, 107 S.Ct. 1962, 95 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987), describing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that  where officer drew his gun ordered driver out of truck patted him down for weapons and detained him for fifteen minutes until dea agent arrived and suspects vehicle was then searched by dea agent  detention was an investigatory stop that required only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (B) holding that reasonable suspicion justifies an investigatory detention (C) holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support the investigatory stop of a vehicle in view of the time of day and the officers prior knowledge of reports of criminal activity in the area (D) holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop (E) holding that officer may order driver out of vehicle once lawfully detained for traffic violation
Output (English): holding that officer may order driver out of vehicle once lawfully detained for traffic violation