In response to the above post, I have no issue with someone picking a better place to pull over. I do have an issue after they pass 20-30 other viable locations that are well lit and off the roadway. I do make sure my officers evaluate whether it is truly a felony case or would be better filed as a misdemeanor (fleeing or attempting to elude).

I agree, Alexlaymen is describing a necessity type defense and trying to imply that the State must negate that defense. I fully agree that someone being pulled over should not stop immediatly if it is not safe to do so and I do not know of a prosecutor who would file an evading where the defendant continued in a safe manner to the nearest public parking lot, police station or fire station before stopping, but that necessity defense is for the defense to prove. That proof generally fails when the defendant has warrants, a suspended Drivers License, 15 entries on their driving record, and/or contraband in their possession. It also fails as described above where they pass perfectly safe places to stop.

[This message was edited by John Greenwood on 07-18-08 at .]

I don't belive the defendant has to *disprove* intentional flight. Since it is an element of the offense the State should prove it. There is no presumption written into the statute.

The existance of warrants, suspended license, etc is evidence you might use to help prove intent.