Michigan State Supreme Court Rules Kalamazoo Man Had A Right to Flee From Police

One charge that seems to pop up on a lot of "disgruntled" criminal records seems to always be some form of resisting arrest, or attempting to flee police. Many people who believe they were wrongfully detained will attempt to escape detainment, which in turn, gives officers a reason to charge them with attempt to flee.

However, a recent ruling from the State Supreme Court in Michigan over a similar incident with a Michigan Man might change the landscape of such charges, as they sided with a man who DID attempt to flee police, and he won't be charged.

Get our free mobile app

Douglas Prude was allegedly approach by police back in May while he was sitting alone, in his car, with the engine off in a parking lot. The area happened to be a high crime area that police often patrolled regularly, so anything suspicious is usually met with at least some questioning.

This time, though, Prude would be subject to far more than just questions.

Prude didn't identify himself, but said he stays with his girlfriend sometimes who lived at the apartment complex he was parked at. Despite not giving his info, one of the officers involved recognized him, and confirmed his identity.

However, while being questioned by the officers, Prude asked if he was being detained, to which one of the officers replied, "Yes."

That's when Prude started his car, and drove away.

The officers caught up with him, took him into custody, and charged him with fleeing an officer, which he was found guilty of, and the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the verdict. But in a recent ruling from the State Supreme Court, they ruled Mr. Prude was actually in the right.

State Justice Megan Cavanagh wrote in a statement for the majority of the bench:

"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."

There was one dissenting opinion, however, from State Justice David Viviano, who said there were several factors in the altercation that may have justified the officers detaining Mr. Prude.

"Looking at the totality of circumstances in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the lower courts did not clearly err by finding that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that [the] defendant was trespassing."

Despite the dissention, the final vote was 5-2 in favor of Mr. Prude. Do you think the judges got it right?