Self-study
In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect's conviction for possession of an illegal weapon. ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ █ ██████████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ █████████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ █████████████
Summary
The judge concludes that evidence collected during the case of the suspect is inadmissible.
Why?
Because the only reason the police were chasing the suspect was the suspect’s running away from the police.
Running away from police, by itself, doesn’t create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.
If evidence is collected during an illegal chase, then it’s inadmissible.
Notable Assumptions
The judge is trying to use the rule “if evidence is collected during an illegal chase, then it’s inadmissible.” But the author hasn’t established that the evidence collected was from an ILLEGAL chase. All that the author has established is that the police did not have reasonable suspicion of a criminal act when they began to chase the suspect. Does that make the chase illegal? We don’t know. We want a principle that establishes the following:
If police chase someone without reasonable suspicion that the person committed or is committing a criminal act, then that chase is illegal.
23.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████████
a
Flight from the ██████ █████ ██████ █ ██████████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███████ ███ █████████
This doesn’t strengthen the argument, because we’re dealing with a situation in with there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. We’re trying to prove that this makes a chase illegal, which in turn makes the evidence collected during the chase inadmissible.
b
People can legally ████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████████ ███ ██ ███ █████
Leads to wrong conclusion. (B) creates a requirement for a suspect to be able to legally flee from police. But that allows us to prove when the suspect’s flight is not legal. We’re trying to prove that the suspect’s flight WAS legal (or that the police’s chase was illegal). (B) structurally doesn’t allow us to do that. Also, we don’t know whether the suspect was actually not involved in a criminal act. We know there was no reasonable suspicion, but that doesn’t imply that the suspect was not actually involved in a criminal act.
c
Police can legally ████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █ ██████████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ████
(C), restated, asserts that if a person’s actions have NOT created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, then it’s illegal for police to give chase. The premises establish that the suspect’s actions did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. So according to (C), then, the police’s chase was illegal.
d
Flight from the ██████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ █ ████████ ████
(D) doesn’t strengthen the argument, because we already know from a premise that flight from police, by itself, does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. We’re trying to show that because there wasn’t reasonable suspicion, the chase of the suspect was illegal. Although we can infer from the premises that flight from police is not a criminal act, that does not prove that a chase of someone who flees without creating reasonable suspicion of a crime is illegal.
e
In all cases ██ █████ █ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █ ██████████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███████
Leads to wrong conclusion. We’re trying to prove that the chase of the suspect was illegal. (E) is designed to lead to the conclusion that a police chase is legal. (If you’re picking (E), you probably think it implies that if a person’s action’s have NOT created reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, then the chase is illegal. But that’s not what it means; you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)