POLICE CHASE

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:28 pm
Location: chennai
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

POLICE CHASE

by pappueshwar » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:48 am
In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a suspect's conviction for possession of an illegal weapon. The suspect had fled upon seeing police and subsequently discarded the illegal weapon after the police gave chase. The judge reasoned as follows: the only cause for the police giving chase was the suspect's flight; by itself, flight from the police does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act; evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible; therefore, the evidence in this case was inadmissible.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the judge's decision that the evidence was inadmissible?
(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved.
(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time.
(C) Police can legally give chase to a person only when the person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act.
(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act.
(E) In all cases in which a person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, police can legally give chase to that person

confused btw C & E . OA IS C
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:42 pm
What is the source of this question.

Need help from experts to crack this.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 9:08 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610

by scholardream » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:13 pm
Hi,
My approach is underneath:
Premise 1: a judge OVERTURNED a suspect's conviction for possession of an illegal weapon.
Premise 2: the suspect had FLED upong seeing police & subsequently DISCARDED the illegal weapon after the police gave chase
Premise 3: Judege reason: police gave chase was the suspect's flight & the FLIGHT doesn't create a reasonable suspicion of a crimnal act & evidence is INADMISSIBLE
Conclusion: the evidence was INADMISSABLE

Question: Valid the justify of judge's decision -> give a link between the Judege reason: police gave chase was the suspect's flight & the FLIGHT doesn't create a reasonable suspicion of a crimnal act and evidence is INADMISSIBLE or I have to look for a reason why the chase of police is legal
(A) 'Other significant factors are involved' -> we don't have any information on significant factors in the passage.
(B) it's about People side, not police side. Please remember that in the passage, it talks only about police side
(C) It states that Police can LEGALLY give chase to a person ONLY when the person's actions have created a reasonable suspicion of criminal act.
Reasonable suspicion -> Police chase: the police chase is legal
In premise: suspect fled -> police chase -> weapon discarded. According to (C), the police chase is illegal -> Correct! It's what I'm looking for
(D) It paraphrases the premise 3 & doesn't give additional information
(E) If this sentence is correct, then the police chase is legal and evidence collected is ADMISSABLE -> it attached the conclusion.
Therefore, my answer is (C)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by agarwalmanoj2000 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:47 pm
Strengthen evidence was inadmissible.

(A) Flight from the police could create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act as long as other significant factors are involved. => Weakens as it justifies flight could create a reasonable suspicion.
(B) People can legally flee from the police only when those people are not involved in a criminal act at the time. => Weakens as it makes suspect guilty because he was in possession of an illegal weapon.
(D) Flight from the police should not itself be considered a criminal act. => Repeats the premises and no new information, so neither strengthen or weakens

Stuck between C and E as both strengthens the conclusion by making the police chase illegal and hence evidence inadmissible.

Experts please help.