Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): information: plaintiff had been eating and dining at the BEQ without paying; plaintiff had a $300.00 unpaid bill from a previous stay at the BEQ; a Pennsylvania court had issued a warrant for plaintiffs arrest for theft; and plaintiff resisted arrest when the Horsham Township Police were taking her into custody. These reasons are well within the Captain’s broad authority to “summarily exclude civilians from the area of -his command.” Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers, 367 U.S. at 893, 81 S.Ct. 1743. Even if the information given to Captain Blake regarding Fields’ outstanding bill and arrest warrant were ultimately shown to be false, it was objectively reasonable for him to rely on this information and issue the Ejectment Order. See Rogers v. Powell, 120 F.3d 446, 455 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). There is no evidence of a constitutional 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had (B) holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern (C) holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger (D) holding that the actions of an officer in reliance on what proves to be the flawed conclusions of a fellow officer may be reasonable nonetheless and thus protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity (E) holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity
Output (English): holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had