Whether, as a matter of law, the Trial Court erred by adjudicating V.P. delinquent on a charge of misdemeanor assault on a police officer in violation of D.C. Code § 22-405 where the government produced no evidence that Appellant, by fleeing on foot when ordered by police to stop, assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with the officer who intended to arrest him?
In re V.P., No. -- Juvenile who fled from police found involved in reckless driving, failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer and assault on a police officer and adjudicated delinquent
1. Whether police had probable cause to arrest Appellant, or even articulable suspicion to stop him, when they seized him and began searching for evidence of a crime, in light of the fact that they had observed only a one-way exchange of currency and saw nothing prior to the seizure tending to indicate that he possessed either narcotics or a weapon?
2. Whether Mr. Upshur was entitled to a jury trial because the crime of possession of crack cocaine is not a “petty” crime and, even if he was not entitled to a jury trial, whether the Trial Court’s actions in the evidence suppression hearing: demonstrating favoritism toward the prosecution, assuming facts favorable to the Government that were not in evidence, refusing to consider evidence contradictory to testimony of the sole government witness, and noting the superior credibility of that witness prior to trial, denied Appellant a fair trial by an impartial adjudicator in violation of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Upshur v. United States, 716 A.2d 981 (D.C. 1998) - Court suppressed physical evidence, ruling that police lacked probable cause to search appellant for evidence of crime when they stopped him during what officers believed was a drug transaction.