MA & AL: Defendant’s flight on seeing police here was reasonable suspicion

Nothing the police did, other than being there, caused the defendant to flee. They had reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Franklin, 456 Mass. 818, 926 N.E.2d 199 (2010):

The line we have attempted to draw is fact specific. Here, the defendant’s flight was not prompted by anything the police did, and, indeed, began before the officers got out of their vehicle. There was no evidence that the police exercised any show of authority or commanded the defendant to stop. See Commonwealth v. Grandison, supra at 138. Nor did they block or impede his path. See Commonwealth v. Sykes, 449 Mass. 308, 313, 867 N.E.2d 733 (2007). Accordingly, the judge’s conclusion that the defendant was seized when the police left their vehicle and began to run after him was incorrect. See Commonwealth v. Battle, supra at 474-475 (no seizure where police stopped cruiser, got out, and pursued defendants into outer hallway of building).

Thereafter, a seizure did take place when the police grabbed the defendant as he was climbing the fence. By that time, “suspicious conduct [gave] the officer[s] reason to suspect that [he had] committed, [was] committing, or [was] about to commit a crime.” Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402, 405, 318 N.E.2d 895 (1974).

Police showed up at an apartment complex (“a high crime area”) to execute a search warrant. Defendant saw the police coming and fled, and that was reasonable suspicion. State v. Cowling, 34 So. 3d 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009), Released for Publication April 30, 2010.* [How about fleeing so as not to get shot by a stray bullet? Wouldn’t that be prudent and not reasonable suspicion?]