Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): brief investigatory stops. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16-19, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 903-05 (1968). “An investigatory stop must be justified by ‘a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity.’ ” State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994) (quoting Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, 362 (1979)). Whether an officer had a reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances. Id. (citing U.S. v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621, 629 (1981)). The stop must be based on specific and articulable facts, as well as the rational inferences from those facts, as vie 410 S.E.2d 504, 506-08 (1991), disc. review denied, 331 N.C. 119, 414 S.E.2d 762 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the dispatch specified only that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot (B) holding officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity necessary to support traffic stop where officer received dispatch that defendant committed disorderly conduct and record check showed parked truck was registered to defendant (C) holding that an officer had reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop of an automobile where the officer received a dispatch that a black male in a black bmw with a temporary license tag was selling controlled substances and the officer observed a person in an automobile fitting that description less than one minute later (D) holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop (E) holding that taillight and license plate violations justify investigatory stop of automobile
Output (English): holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot