Scenario clarification.

[tenfour]

Ok, in my criminal procedure class the prof. who is the DA, was giving us examples of scenarios relating to search/seizure and stop/frisk etc. What I'm doing is comparing what we learn in school to what actually happens.

So here's the scenario, your patroling the streets and it's about 3am, obviously nobody is out. You see a person walking down the street, as you get closer to this person the person see's you and just bolts. What would you do?

I've asked a buddy of mine who is an officer, and some other guys we hang out with who are all cops. I'd just like to see some more outside opinions...

[retdetsgt]

Chase him down. There are very few who run from the police for no reason.

[Bearcat06]

He's running for a reason.. He's either got dope on him, has warrants, has a weapon, or is out doing something/has just done something and thinks his *** is grass and you are about to play the lawn mower. I have never chased an innocent person. And that comes from 10 years of Military LE and 5 years of Civilian LE.

[txinvestigator1]

So you chase him and catch him. What then?

[Ranger__101]

With the recent decions from the courts about some one who runs, it is enough reson to do a terry stop and see what's going on.

[tenfour]

Yes! I agree 100% and thats what all my buddies have told me as well, but my damn professor and some ignorant students in my class insist that you can do nothing and that a person has every right to walk away from you or run if thats the case. But in my opinion at that time of the day especially in that type of situation someone running away once they see police is reasonable suspicion to stop and do a terry.

[tenfour]

See here's another gray area, so you chase him down right, obviously he's not going to or most likely not going to just stop and turn around and talk. Can you tackle him/her in order to freeze the situation based on your reasonable suspicion or will that bring trouble? What do you do when you catch up to the person?

[Piggy]

See here's another gray area, so you chase him down right, obviously he's not going to or most likely not going to just stop and turn around and talk. Can you tackle him/her in order to freeze the situation based on your reasonable suspicion or will that bring trouble? What do you do when you catch up to the person?

Make sure there are no witnesses to see what you are about to do.

Actually, what I'd do is cuff him, frisk him and then talk to him to see what he's doing. I'd then backtrack to see if he tossed anything or broke into something. If all else fails, unhook him and let him walk.

[CTDL92]

Three from PA
Commonwealth v. Cottman
Superior Court held that a police officer possessed the necessary reasonable suspicion to stop defendant when he was located in a high crime area, furtively sought to conceal an object, and then fled after being approached.
“The court focused on the investigative detention, which requires that an officer have reasonable suspicion that the person he stopped is then engaged in unlawful activity. The court then applied the standard to the instant case and held that the officer did possess the necessary reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The defendant argued that flight alone is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.

While the court reaffirmed this notion, the court also indicated that flight, when considered together with additional facts, might warrant investigation. The court emphasized the importance of looking at the totality of the circumstances to determine if reasonable suspicion exists. Relying on the officer’s experience in law enforcement, defendant’s presence in a high crime area, defendant’s furtive movements, and his flight when approached, the court concluded that the officer had the necessary reasonable suspicion for a stop. Additionally, even though the officer did not actually see the item concealed by the defendant, his experience and common sense dictated that in all likelihood the defendant possessed some kind of illegal contraband. “


Commonwealth v. Nobalez
805 A.2d 598 (Pa. Super. Ct.)
Decided: August 6, 2002

The Superior Court held that probable cause existed to detain and search defendant when an experienced narcotics officer observed the defendant conducting a suspected drug transaction in a known drug-trafficking area and the buyer fled after the sale.

Commonwealth v. Jefferson
853 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. Ct.)
Decided: June 22, 2004

The Superior Court held that reasonable suspicion was established and a Terry stop was warranted when an individual was approached in a high crime area and he promptly fled upon seeing a police officer.
“The United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), held that although mere presence in a high crime area is insufficient to support a Terry stop, the additional factor of unprovoked flight was indeed relevant. The Court in that case ultimately concluded that presence in a high crime area in combination with unprovoked flight was sufficient to satisfy the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion”

[tenfour]

Thanks for the replies!

[Babysmamadrama]

You bet chase him down. You have to look at the "totality of the circumstances". It's 3 am, no one is out or really have any legitimate business being out, you are an experienced officer who knows the area, knows that folks are not out walking at 0300 and you know from your training and experience that criminals like to use the cover of darkness to commit their crimes.

Using the reasonable police officer theory, you can easily say you had reasonable suspicion to detain the subject. In my venue, we have a resisting detention ordinance and because of the totality of the circumstances and the fact that you called out to him to stop, which you did, he is now certainly committing a crime.

I have found in my experience that folks that run are always dirty, and the ones that don't have any fear of wants, warrants or have been involved in recent criminal activity will eye (another word for carnal knowledge) because they figure you don't have anything on them.

Now they will argue that they have been beatup by the police before and that's the reason they ran. :rolleyes:

[DeltaV]

I'd chase him. Florida has an offense called 'resisting an officer without violence,' and it's possible to charge a suspect under this section if they flee from you and you have legal grounds for a detention. That said, chances are that the suspect is going to end up having warrants or contraband on his person, so that's an added charge.

[tpd_six]

As soon as you tell him to stop and he still runs he can then be arrested for resisting/interfering. All you have to show is you had enough suspicion to attempt the stop in the first place. There has already been a ruling that running at the sight of an officer is reasonable suspicion.

[retdetsgt]

I may end up letting him go in the end, but he's going to be delaying in conducting his life for a while. I'd cuff him and put him in my back seat for a spell and check him everyway from Sunday. And I have been known to get cuffs a little too tight when I get excited.

If he didn't run from me for no other reason than to be cute, I'm going to make it worth his time so that he'd think twice before doing that again.

There used to be a guy called "White Roy" that ran everytime he saw the cops. It was always sorta funny because as he chased him, he threw his dope as he ran. I have no idea how many hundreds of dollars we cost him even though we quit trying to catch him. It was just fun to steal his drugs.

[Group9]

So you chase him and catch him. What then?

You use whatever force is necessary to make him stop, do a Terry Frisk for weapons, and then see if you can figure out why he was running.

Part of the problem is that your professor is operating in the purely theoretical world, while we operate in the real world. I used to have this argument with my wife, who used to be an attorney for my agency.

She was asking about Terry stops and looking for weapons, and I told her that on the street, there is only one standard, if a subject does anything that makes me think he might have a weapon, I look for it, and I don't even worry about whether what I find will be admissable or not.

She couldn't understand that I might knowingly and intentionally violate someone's constitutional right against a search, and risk having evidence thrown out. It took a while to make her understand that solving a crime comes in second to not being killed.