LET: Michigan Supreme Court rules suspect fleeing police was legal, says officers 'didn’t have sufficient reason' to detain him

As reported by MichiganLIVE, when officers approached Prude, he was sitting in his car alone with the engine turned off in the parking lot of the Fox Ridge Apartments. The complex is regularly patrolled due to a high level of reported criminal activity court documents revealed.

As Officer Deleeuw queried the Fox Ridge database to determine if Prude had any prior warnings or trespasses, Prude asked another officer if he was being detained. The second officer, Nathan Belen stated that he was. At this point, Prude started his vehicle and fled the scene at high speed, leading to his eventual capture, arrest, and conviction.

Prude subsequently challenged his conviction, which was upheld by the Appellate Court but has now been overturned by the Supreme Court on July 5th.

Justice Megan Cavanagh writing for the majority of the court wrote, “Even the most cursory warrantless seizure must be justified by an objectively reasonable particularized suspicion of criminal activity.”

The ruling in part concluded, "Douglas Prude, was parked in an apartment-complex parking lot known for frequent criminal activity, and when police officers attempted to detain him to investigate whether he was trespassing, he sped away from the officers in his vehicle. He was charged and eventually convicted by a jury of second-degree fleeing and eluding, MCL 257.602a(4), and assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1). Both offenses required the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police acted lawfully. Defendant argues that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence that officers lawfully detained him on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that he was trespassing."

"We agree. Without more, there is nothing suspicious about a citizen sitting in a parked car in an apartment-complex parking lot while visiting a resident of that complex.

Moreover, a citizen's mere presence in an area of frequent criminal activity does not provide particularized suspicion that they were engaged in any criminal activity, and an officer may not detain a citizen simply because they decline a request to identify themselves. Even viewed together, these facts did not provide the officers in this case an objectively reasonable particularized basis for suspecting that defendant was trespassing. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reverse defendant's convictions and sentences, and remand to the Kalamazoo Circuit Court to enter judgments of acquittal as to both charges.

Michigan Public Radio Defense attorney and legal expert Michael Nichols explained the case's significance in establishing boundaries for police conduct in the state. "What makes this so significant is you can’t just come to me and say, ‘high crime area, the person wouldn’t respond to me, and then the person took off when I told him to stop," he said according to Michigan News Source.