Illinois v. Wardlow

528 U.S. 119 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Officers Nolan and Harvey were driving the last car of a four-car caravan converging on an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking in order to investigate drug transactions. The officers were traveling together because they expected to find a crowd of people in the area, including lookouts and customers. Officer Nolan observed respondent Wardlow standing next to the building holding an opaque bag. Respondent looked in the direction of the officers and fled. Nolan and Harvey turned their car southbound, watched him as he ran through the gangway and an alley, and eventually they cornered him on the street. Nolan then exited his car and stopped respondent. He immediately conducted a protective pat-down search for weapons because in his experience it was common for there to be weapons in the near vicinity of narcotics transactions. During the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the bag respondent was carrying and felt a heavy, hard object similar to the shape of a gun. The officer then opened the bag and discovered a .38-caliber handgun with five live rounds of ammunition. The officers arrested Wardlow. The state trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. The Appellate Court reversed; the officer did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop. Terry v. Ohio. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed. The Illinois Supreme Court determined that sudden flight in such an area does not create a reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. Police have the right to approach individuals and ask questions, the individual has no obligation to respond. The person may decline to answer and simply go on his or her way, and the refusal to respond, alone, does not provide a legitimate basis for an investigative stop. The court then determined that flight may simply be an exercise of this right to 'go on one's way,' and, thus, could not constitute reasonable suspicion. It also rejected the argument that flight combined with the fact that it occurred in a high crime area supported a finding of reasonable suspicion because the 'high crime area' factor was not sufficient standing alone to justify a Terry stop.