Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 1265

Donald Murdock was alleged to have violated probation by committing Resisting Law Enforcement (Class A misdemeanor) after an April 3, 2013 incident; the probation-violation notice did not specify the statute subsection.
Officer Richard Weaver radioed that a white male in a white T-shirt was running from him; Officer Vincent Stewart and other uniformed officers set a perimeter at a largely vacant, high-crime apartment complex that night.
While checking a vacant apartment, Stewart saw a man matching the description run out the back; Stewart identified himself, ordered the man to stop, and pursued.
Murdock kept running into a creek, pushed Stewart (causing knee injury), resisted, was pepper-sprayed, and was taken into custody.
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Murdock knowingly fled after a police officer identified himself and ordered him to stop, and revoked probation, ordering the previously suspended sentence executed.
On appeal, Murdock argued insufficient evidence because Stewart lacked a warrant or reasonable suspicion; the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed based on the officer having reasonable suspicion under the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer's order to stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause	State: statute requires officer identification and order; here those occurred and were supported by facts justifying reasonable suspicion	Murdock: officer lacked warrant and did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before ordering stop	Held: The stop/order must be supported by at least reasonable suspicion; here facts (description, flight, high-crime area, furtive behavior, perimeter) supplied reasonable suspicion
Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke probation for resisting by fleeing	State: testimony and circumstances show Murdock knowingly/intentionally fled after an identified officer ordered him to stop and thereafter resisted	Murdock: insufficient proof of the officer's lawful authority to order him to stop (no warrant, no observed crime)	Held: Substantial probative evidence supported revocation—Murdock fled after a properly based order and thus committed resisting law enforcement

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is a matter of grace and revocation decisions afford trial-court discretion)
Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 1995) (State must prove probation violation by preponderance; appellate review considers evidence most favorable to judgment)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight in a high-crime area is a factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
State v. Atkins, 834 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. 2005) (refusal to cooperate alone is insufficient for reasonable suspicion, but furtive behavior, flight, or corroborated suspect description can support it)