Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): his partner Officer Lilly. When the dissent argues that there was no one else at the setting to whom a purse with unknown contents could be given, it ignores the presence of Officer Stewart’s partner, Officer Lilly- ¶ 19 Further, nothing in the actual facts of this ease supports Officer Stewart’s immediate search of the purse before attempting to assess the situation. Thus, when the dissent engages in a worst-case scenario of what might have subsequently transpired had the purse been returned to Appellant before it was searched, it is pure speculation. The officers might have determined there was no danger in returning the purse to Appellant because the situation was never as exigent as the 9-1-1 report suggested. See State v. Gissendaner, 177 Ariz. 81, 83, 865 P.2d 125, 127 (App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Alternately, the officers might have had time 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where officers were faced with a call reporting burglary in progress (B) holding that police in responding to a domestic violence call were not justified in engaging in a warrantless entry because the assault was over and there was no real danger that the assault was about to resume (C) holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry (D) holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry (E) holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant
Output (English): holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry