Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): owner of every container that conceals its contents from plain view.” United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798, 822-823, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572, citing Robbins v. California (1981), 453 U.S. 420, 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744. The court went on to state that the degree of that protection varies depending on the circumstances, noting that a suitcase may be randomly searched by customs agents or that containers, including those found inside automobiles, may be searched incident to the arrest of the owner. Id. at. 823, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572. Other cases have recognized that one may not have Fourth Amendment protections from searches of “rare single purpose containers which by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectatio pp. No. 99CR203, 2001 WL 62288 (<HOLDING>). In Texas v. Brown (1983), 460 U.S. 730, 103 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him (B) holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station (C) holding that plaintiff conceded argument raised in dispositive motion by failing to address it (D) holding that a folded index card is not a singlepurpose container since officer conceded that contents were not immediately apparent to him (E) holding that appellant did not unequivocally consent to a search when deputy asked him if he would mind if the contents of his pockets were removed and appellant did not respond
Output (English): holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station