E.D.Pa.: If a defendant has a right to refuse to talk to an officer during an encounter, his walking away cannot be considered flight under Wardlow

If a defendant has a right to refuse to talk to an officer during an encounter, his walking away cannot be considered flight under Wardlow. United States v. Saroeuth, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40018 (E.D. Pa. April 12, 2011):

The evidence concerning whether Defendant fled is material to the Court’s analysis, as Wardlow indicates that unprovoked flight constitutes evasive behavior, and is a factor in determining whether reasonable suspicion existed, however, mere refusal to cooperate with the police does not support reasonable suspicion. Defendant argues that he was not fleeing the scene, but was merely exercising his lawful right to ignore police questioning and proceed on his way. The Court finds Defendant’s position supported by the aforementioned evidence. As Officer Newell approached Defendant, Defendant opted to ignore Officer Newell and peddle away, which at that point constituted a mere encounter. Thus, the Court cannot factor the Defendant’s provoked flight into its analysis of whether reasonable suspicion existed, as such flight occurred after the officers’ actions which constituted detention of Defendant.

The events leading up to the pursuit included a dispersing crowd in a high crime area, however, the people were walking, and not running away. Thus, no criminal activity was afoot when the officers arrived at the scene. Officer Newell testified that at the time of the incident, it was still daylight.

Further, despite the Officer’s contention that Defendant was agreeable during past interactions, it is unreasonable, and not “commonsense judgment”, as required by Wardlow, for officers to believe that Defendant should display the same agreeable nature under the circumstances on June 22, 2010. …

A typographical error on the issuance of the search warrant would be corrected and ignored. It is clear from the rest of the record when the warrant was issued, and it was before the search occurred, not after. There was a nexus between the heroin trafficking ring defendant was in and keeping drugs at his house. He was also denied a Franks hearing. United States v. Ugochukwu, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40171 (N.D. Ohio April 1, 2011).* Also involving a typo on the same date is United States v. Ellis, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39781 (N.D. Ga. March 4, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.