Two plainclothes officers jumped out of a car and approached to men who fled. The court finds the officers didn’t identify themselves. This wasn’t reasonable suspicion, and the court finds exclusion warranted for the police conduct. United States v. Bell, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166114 (S.D. N.Y. June 27, 2017):
In sum, the record reflects that Detective Abraham startled two men in the early evening darkness and, when Bell failed to follow a single command, he gave chase. Cf. Torres, 2017 WL 2105985, at *4 (concluding the defendant “was well aware that the individuals in the car were in fact law enforcement officers” even though “the officers were in plainclothes, emerged from an unmarked car, and did not identify themselves as police” because video evidence demonstrated that the defendant had ample time to observe the actions of the unmarked car and chose to flee “as soon as [the detective] exited the vehicle”).
The question remains whether exclusion is warranted. Although the Supreme Court has recently reiterated that the rule “does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits.” Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2059 (2016), it remains the best method of deterring “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct.” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144 (2009). Here, considering the particular facts and circumstances of this case, exclusion is warranted. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his initial arrest will be granted.