Preptest #26 Question #23 Forum

[NaturalLawyer]

I see why (C) is the right answer now.

But why exactly is (D) wrong? It does seem to me like (D), if valid, would certainly help justify the judge's decision.

Is (D) wrong ultimately because it doesn't justify the judge's decision as well as (C)? Or is there another reason?

I would appreciate any feed back!

[NaturalLawyer]

And also: Section 2.

[AverageTutoring]

Note: Golf + beer = not very good LR explanations

[NaturalLawyer]

Are you the same Natural Lawyer as on the Canadian law student's forums? Anyways...

D is wrong because if we say that flight from police is not in itself a criminal act that still leaves the door open to the possibility that flight from police could create reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.

So while flight might not be a criminal act, flight could create reasonable suspicion and the cops could then use any evidence obtained in that pursuit against the alleged criminal.

Lets use an analogy.

Say someone in a Ford Mustang GT is going 10 km/h under the speed limit on the highway. While this may not in itself be illegal (just like flight from police might not be illegal) it might create a reasonable suspicion that the cops have a reason to stop/search the driver. I mean who goes 10 km/h under the speed limit on the highway in a Ford Mustang GT?? No one!

By the way, this analogy actually happened on an episode of Cops or some other cop/chase show that I saw. The driver/passenger ended up being drug dealers and there was a big chase involved. Just because they went a few km under the speed limit!

I'm not quite sure how this answers my question which was just why (D) does not help to justify the judge's answer.

Suppose that (D) is false and that the flight from the police should itself be considered a criminal act.
(1) Then, there would be reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.
(2) If it is true that a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act would make the chase legal, then it seems that the chase was not illegal afterall.)
(3) Evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible. But in this case the chase was not illegal.
(4) So the evidence in the case is not necessarily inadmissible.
(5) So (D) if false, would weaken the judge's argument since then the evidence in the case could be admissible.
(6) So (D) if true, would help justify the judge's argument.

Now that I have thought more deeply about it, I think I see why (C) must be true. The main reason is because of (3) above. The missing link in the judge's argument occurs in the step from
(I) The flight does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act
TO:
(II) Evidence gathered from an illegal chase is inadmissible.

The missing link that connects (I) and (II) is provided by the correct answer:
(C), which states that: "Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act."

(And no I'm not from the Canadian Law student forum. But thanks for the reply. Perhaps I did not fully understand your answer... Feel free to straighten me out!)

[dub]

Negating the answer only shows if the statement was a necessary assumption.

D does not help because something does not need to be considered a criminal act in order for police to legally give chase, only acts that create reasonable suspicion of a criminal act do.

[AverageTutoring]

Negating the answer only shows if the statement was a necessary assumption.

D does not help because something does not need to be considered a criminal act in order for police to legally give chase, only acts that create reasonable suspicion of a criminal act do.

^_^ this

By the way I was drunk when I wrote the above...Note to self, do not write on these boards after a long day of golf and beer. WOW. I'll try my hand at this again, the morning after lol (probably not a great idea...)

The stimulus says that the only reason for giving chase was the flight of the individual. The stimulus also says that flight, taken by itself, does not constitute reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. In addition, it also says that evidence taken during an illegal chase is inadmissible and because of this, the police cannot use the guns they found as evidence.

But wait. Did the stimulus ever tell us that just because there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act that the chase was illegal? No, it did not! There is a subtle shift here.

The Judge's decision assumes that because there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act that the chase was illegal. In other words, only when there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act is persuit by the police legal. So our answer choice must address this if we are to validate the Judge's decision.

Answer choice C addresses this fact. Answer choice D simply says that flight is not illegal. Well, does this help address the above shift? It really doesn't.

This question asks us to validate the judges reasoning. But even if we assume that flight from police is not illegal does that help us with the logical jump from "does not create reasonable suspicion of a criminal act" to "chase was illegal?"

[NaturalLawyer]

AverageTutoring:

I'm in complete agreement with you that (C) is the correct answer because it establishes the conditional: If there is no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, then the the chase is illegal.

But you also say:
"Answer choice C addresses this fact. Answer choice D simply says that flight is not illegal. Well, does this help address the above shift? It really doesn't.

This question asks us to validate the judges reasoning. But even if we assume that flight from police is not illegal does that help us with the logical jump from "does not create reasonable suspicion of a criminal act" to "chase was illegal?"

Actually (D), even if true, does not show that the chase was not illegal (or legal). If (D) is true, then (at best) it shows that there was a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. But (D) is still wrong because, even if true, the logical gap that is addressed by the answer choice (C) still remains. There still would be no link between there being a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act and the legal status of a chase.

But perhaps this is what you meant!

Thanks anyways for the response.