1. I know this is a blog, and the word “blog” kind of implies a less formal forum than a law review or journal, but still, this is a digital publication of the UNC SOG, a highly esteemed institution. For that reason, it seems inappropriate to turn it into a forum for making fun of defendants and witnesses nicknames. Yeah, the world of criminal law has its lighter side, and we’ve all had some belly laughs from crazy cases, but airing that in a serious post just seems crass.

2. You characterize the apartment complex as “drug infested.” Was that a finding of fact from the case, or simply a loaded phrase that you used to help support your conclusion in the last paragraph that running from the police would support an investigatory detention? (since we all know that either running OR “high crime area” standing alone, would not support a Terry stop.)

However much crime there is, it remains that the site of this case was an apartment complex, a place where a lot of people live. So here’s a guy standing around, who sees officers, and decides to take off. Period. He “caught a break,” you say? I don’t know about that. Seems like a pretty solid basis for suppression.

I am a bit confused here. Is “reasonable suspicion” a crime in North Carolina? The officer charged the defendant with R/D/O of…?

If the defendant running in the presence of a police officer aroused a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was taking or had taken place, there was no actual crime at the time of the flight.

The charge of resisting would also be in question. If the defendant ran and the officer did not communicate that the defendant was being placed under arrest, how could he resist something he had no knowledge was occuring?

As for delaying and obstructing an investigation, the officer’s choice of commands would be called into question. Did the officer communicate to the defendant that he was to be placed under investigation for “reasonable suspicion” of alleged criminal activity? If not, how could the defendant possibly know he was obstructing or delaying an investigation when he had no knowlege that an investigation was being requested?

It almost seems to me that police officers are using the charges of R/D/O ex post facto in the sense that running is a legal activity while running from criminal activity is not. Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is not a crime in itself. how, therefore, can running at the sight of a police officer and arousing reasonable suspicion that warrants an investigation be considered as resisting an arrest(if the officer during the pursuit doesn’t communicate to the defendant that he is being placed under arrest) or delaying and obstructing an investigation(there again, if the request for investigation is not communicated before or during the pursuit)?

Once the defendant is apprehended, informed of an arrest and investigation and an actual crime is established, any actions thereafter could be determined as R/D/O. However, all of the defendants actions preceding the apprehension should be protected under the United States constitution in my opinion.

In the end, I neither justify criminal activity nor running from a police officer. However, I want to preserve the safety of my children as they age by ensuring that if they take off running down the street some day and a police officer happens to be present, they are not, at worse, shot or, at best, arrested for R/D/O.