E.D.Pa.: Prior flight from an officer adds nothing to RS calculus

Prior flight from an officer adds nothing to the reasonable suspicion calculus, but the remainder here does. United States v. Foushee, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209986 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2020):

The alleged circumstances supporting a finding of reasonable suspicion in this case are as follows: (1) that the stop occurred in a high-crime area, (2) Defendant’s furtive movements as the officers pulled over the car, (3) Defendant’s nervousness, and (4) the information from Officer Wildsmith provided to Officer Sulock that Defendant had previously fled from a traffic stop.

The Court will first consider the issue of the information provided by Officer Wildsmith. As the Court found Officer Sulock’s testimony credible, it will assume that he was being truthful regarding the information provided to him. However, the Court also finds that this information is not relevant to determining whether reasonable suspicion existed. The knowledge that Defendant previously fled from another officer cannot justify this search when the purpose of the search is officer safety. The previous incident took place one month prior to the stop considered here and there is no suggestion that Defendant was suspected of having weapons at that time, or any other circumstances to suggest he was dangerous at that time. Further, during the stop considered here, Defendant was compliant with all of the officer’s commands and did not attempt to flee at any point. Therefore, the fact that he fled from a stop in the past cannot suggest that he would be violent or possess a weapon one month later.

However, the remaining information known to Officer Sulock was sufficient for a finding of reasonable suspicion. …

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.