Bunuel wrote:
In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction for possession of an illegal weapon. The suspect had fled upon seeing police and subsequently discarded the illegal weapon after the police gave chase. The judge reasoned as follows: the only cause for the police giving chase was the suspect’s flight; by itself, flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act; evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible; therefore, the evidence in this case was inadmissible.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge’s decision that the evidence was inadmissible?
(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved.
(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time.
(C) Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.
(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act.
(E) In all cases in which a person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, police can legally give chase to that person.
Seems to be a very tricky question :
Premise : In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction for possession of an illegal weapon.
Premise : The suspect had fled upon seeing police and subsequently discarded the illegal weapon after the police gave chase.
Conclusion : The judge reasoned as follows: the only cause for the police giving chase was the suspect’s flight; by itself, flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act; evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible; therefore, the evidence in this case was inadmissible.
Question : Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge’s decision that the evidence was inadmissible?
(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved.This doesn't justify the argument as there were other significant factor. He was already a suspect.
(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time.
This does justify the argument as judge already overturned the suspect's conviction and he was no more a culprit. Hence if he can legally flee from police, there is no issue.(C) Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.If this would be true, police action is justified.
(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act.Flight from the police should not be considered as a criminal act, but he was already a culprit which will confuse police.
(E) In all cases in which a person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, police can legally give chase to that person.This is opposite to the conclusion.