Illinois v. Wardlow

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Illinois v. Wardlow
ArgueDate = November 2
ArgueYear = 1999
DecideDate = January 12
DecideYear = 2000
FullName = Illinois, Petitioner v. William aka Sam Wardlow
USVol = 528
USPage = 119
Citation =
Prior = 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N. E. 2d 484
Subsequent =
Holding = The police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
SCOTUS = 1994-2005
Majority = Rehnquist
JoinMajority = O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent = Stevens
JoinDissent = Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
LawsApplied =

"Illinois v. Wardlow", 528 U.S. 119 (2000), is a case decided before the United States Supreme Court involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures.

Facts

Officers patrolling an area of Chicago known for narcotics spotted William "Sam" Wardlow [ [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1036.ZO.html Illinois V. Wardlow ] ] fleeing the area holding a bag. Alert to the possibility of Wardlow carrying a weapon, the police patted Wardlow down upon catching him. The police discovered Wardlow was carrying a gun, and he was arrested.

Procedure

Wardlow moved to suppress the evidence regarding the gun claiming the stop was unreasonable and that there are many legitimate reasons for fleeing from the sight of police. An Illinois trial court denied his motion, and he was convicted. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed, finding that the officers did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion for making a stop. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that decision stating that fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is not enough to create reasonable suspicion.

Issue

Whether an individual who suddenly and without provocation flees from identifiable police officers patrolling a high crime area creates reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment for the police to stop him.

Holding

In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.

Dissent

Justice John Paul Stevens argued in dissent that the government did not articulate enough facts to establish reasonable suspicion and that there were not enough facts in the record to corroborate the government's claim.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 528
*"Terry v. Ohio", ussc|392|1|1968

References

Further reading

* cite journal | last = Johnson-Liu | first = M. E. | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1999 | month = | title = Running from the Law in the Wrong Part of Town: "Illinois v. Wardlow" | journal = American Journal of Criminal Law | volume = 27 | issue = | pages = 129 | issn = 0092-2315 | url = | accessdate = | quote =
* cite journal | last = Wang | first = Andrea | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2001 | month = | title = "Illinois v. Wardlow" and the Crisis of Legitimacy: An Argument for a ‘Real Cost’ Balancing Test | journal = Law & Inequality | volume = 19 | issue = | pages = 1 | issn = 0737-089X | url = | accessdate = | quote =

External links

* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/528/119/case.html Full text opinion from Justia.com]