丁丁倒数 64# （半夜逛论坛 逛得睡不着……）

玛莎丁丁

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.

这就把今天想贴的题目发上来吧=。=

s_dUSA

Reasonable suspicion is a principle from 4 TH Amendment, criminal procedure question!

Text of 4 TH A (this is probably the most important article in human history):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

玛莎丁丁

亲……这水灌的~~~

感谢s_dUSA童鞋的科普，and then let's focus on the logic of this question:

What we've already known:
1. the only cause for police chase was suspect's flight
2. flight alone does not create reasonable suspicion of criminal act
3. evidence collected in an illegal chase is inadmissible

If we need to reach the conclusion:
the evidence collected was inadmissable

Then we need to fill the logic gap that:
the chase was illegal

Hence, C fills the logic gap perfectly.
A and D mentioned suspicion but did not cling to when could the police "legally chase" someone.
Similarly, B mentioned "legally flee" but it has nothing to do with what we need.
E is temping and here's the explanation of it quoted from some foreign forums:
(E) confuses sufficiency with necessity (it reverses the terms). (E) 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.