Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. Davis, 66 Ill.2d at 89-90, 360 N.E.2d at 767, 4 Ill.Dec. at 654, quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment d (1965). Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants’ conduct rose to such a level. Accordingly, the probable cause existed to support an officer’s actions, the case should not be permitted to go to trial if there is any reasonable basis to conclude that probable cause existed.” Biddle v. Martin, 992 F.2d 673, 676 (7th Cir.1993), quoting Cross v. City of Des Moines, 965 F.2d 629, 632 (8th Cir.1992). 10 . See Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv. Inc., 771 F.2d 194, 200 (7th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the fourth amendment sets the applicable constitutional limitations on the treatment of an arrestee detained without a warrant up until the time such arrestee is released or found to be legally in custody based upon probable cause for arrest (B) holding neither a phone call by the police requesting an arrestee to come to the station for questioning nor the questioning of an arrestee at the station was a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment (C) holding that where an individual voluntarily goes to the police station to discuss the commission of a crime that person has not been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment (D) holding that transportation of arrestee to police station is service of police under the ada (E) holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely
Output (English): holding that accused was not in custody when asked to go to the police station and left the station freely