PrepTest 103, Section 2, Question 23
In a certain municipality, a judge overturned a(75 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(15 more words not shown)
- AFlight from the(18 more words not shown)
- BPeople can legally(18 more words not shown)
- CPolice can legally(19 more words not shown)
- DFlight from the(9 more words not shown)
- EIn all cases(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The suspect apparently had the weapon. Why would the conviction be overturned?
The judge's explanation is about whether the evidence may be used, not whether the weapon existed. We're told that running was the only reason for the chase, that running alone doesn't create reasonable suspicion, and that evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible.
I might initially feel that running from police sounds suspicious. But the argument expressly gives us the contrary premise for this situation. We need to work with it rather than substitute our own reaction.
My next question is when the weapon was collected. If the rule concerns evidence collected during the chase, its timing matters. I'd initially look for something connecting the recovered weapon to that rule.
What we’re looking for
The stem asks for a principle that helps justify the judge's decision. Let's see what rule the choices add. The explanation has to connect the stated facts to inadmissibility; it's not enough merely to repeat that the judge dislikes the chase.
Working the answers
- A
This allows flight to create reasonable suspicion when other significant factors are present. Here we're told flight was the only basis for the chase. A doesn't establish those other factors, and it doesn't say when a chase is legal. It therefore doesn't supply the missing connection. It also doesn't directly undermine the judge merely by describing a different situation.
- B
This restricts when a person may legally flee. The needed rule concerns when police may legally chase. Those are different questions. Even if B made this suspect's flight unlawful, we'd still need another rule connecting that fact to the legality of the pursuit or the use of the evidence. B doesn't justify the judge's conclusion.
- CCorrect
This exposes a connection I initially passed over: why does a lack of reasonable suspicion make the chase illegal? C makes reasonable suspicion a requirement for a lawful chase.
Now follow the steps. Flight alone supplies no reasonable suspicion, and it was the only basis for this pursuit. Without the required suspicion, the chase was illegal. That lets the judge apply the stated rule against evidence collected during an illegal chase. C supplies the legal-chase requirement instead of answering my original timing question.
- D
Saying flight shouldn't itself be a crime doesn't establish that police may chase only people reasonably suspected of a crime. A person could do something lawful while a separate rule still permitted police to follow. We need a restriction on lawful pursuit, not simply a judgment about whether running is criminal. C provides that restriction; D doesn't.
- E
This says reasonable suspicion is enough to permit a chase. It doesn't say reasonable suspicion is required. A rule might permit chases when suspicion exists and also permit them in some other circumstances. To conclude that this chase was illegal from the absence of suspicion, we need to rule out those other permitted cases. E leaves them open.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.