In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect’s conviction

Principle : Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person’s actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.

Premise : A guy ran the other way after seeing the Police(This isn't a criminal act). Police had no reason to chase him other than him fleeing as soon as he saw the police. Therefore , Police's action wasn't justified and any evidence obtained henceforth is inadmissible

Ans C

A. This statement doesn’t justify judge’s decision. It rather opposes the decision by stating that a flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion under certain circumstances which are not made clear in the statement.
B. This statement introduces uncertain terms, "involved in a criminal act at the time" plays no part in the judge's ultimate decision here. It's too broad of scope; In this particular case, the criminal wasn't involved in a crime, that doesn't mean the police can never legally give chase. While the argument doesn't allow for flight to provide reasonable suspicion, if reasonable suspicion had already been established (the suspect was a wanted felon) then we have no rule to follow from this argument.
C. The judge concludes the evidence is inadmissible due to the illegal chase. And the chase is illegal (according to the judge) because there were no grounds for reasonable suspicion. Again, by designating it an illegal chase, the judge must believe that police can legally give chase only when reasonable suspicion has been established. In logical terms, this is the contra-positive to the judge's initial statement. Hence, C is the answer.
D. This statement includes the word "should" which makes this answer the judge's opinion instead of the rule or principle he or she follows. The judge isn't claiming flight from police should not be considered illegal, instead that this is already the law and thus must not be considered a criminal act. We know nothing of the judge's personal opinion on flight from police.
E. This statement confuses sufficiency with necessity (it reverses the terms). It makes reasonable suspicion sufficient to give chase whereas it is actually the other way around. If police legally give chase, we know for certain reasonable suspicion has been established. Reasonable suspicion thus becomes the necessary element.

Whatever choice D is telling us is already given in the passage. The judge already said that police cannot legally give chase to a person without having suspicion of criminal activity. Which is simply restating, more sweepingly, that running away from police should not be considered a criminal act. Thus this choice does nothing to justify the decision of the judge simply because it doesn't provide any basis for the judge's main declaration that the chase given by the police in this case was illegal - we need to justify this and choice C does it sharply.­

Adding further reasoning to reject choice D: the negation of this would be that - fleeing away from police should be taken as a criminal offense. This does not shatter the judge's conclusion about the evidence, since we know from logic -> evidence from an illegal chase is inadmissible. This does NOT mean that evidence from a legal case is always admissible. Hence, judge's conclusion might still hold.