Victor Cho

5/12/2015

Period 8
Legal or Not
In the Illinois v. Wardlow case, the U.S Supreme Court justified a Terry stop for an
unprovoked flight. The majority opinion states: The officers stop did not violate the 4th
Amendment. They argue that a Terry stop is a lawful stop and frisk, saying that there is minimal
intrusion from a Terry stop. If the law enforcement officials are unable to find possible evidence
or contraband, the victim may take leave. However, if they do succeed in finding possible
contraband, it would be justified as a lawful search. The majority also talks about the 4th
amendment rule, saying how reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a lawful stop. An individual,
unaccompanied, in a crime ridden area, provides insufficient evidence. However, their actions
can determine reasonable suspicion. Usually, nervous or evasive behaviors are a factor in
determining reasonable suspicion. The majority states that reasonable suspicion must be based
on common sense judgments and inferences about human behavior. Therefore, an officer
suspecting that an individual is involved in criminal activity is simply investigating further by
stopping the individual briefly. Lastly, sudden flights from a clearly identifiable police officer
can indicate criminal activity; therefore stopping the person is not a violation to the 4th
amendment.
The minority argues that there was not enough information in this case to conduct a
lawful Terry stop. Officer Nolan was unable to recall whether the cars were marked or if the
other seven officers were in police uniforms, which makes the stop unlawful. The suspect could
have been fleeing for a different reason. Chances were that the police officers were not clearly
identifiable, therefore not creating the basis of reasonable suspicion lawful for conducting a
Terry stop. The only factor in Wardlows flight was He looked in our direction and began

fleeing. Even his white opaque bag was not suspicious enough. In high crime areas, unprovoked
flight is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion. This fact is too generic and susceptible to
innocent explanation to satisfy reasonable suspicion inquiry. The minority says it is the states
burden to find sufficient facts, which they have failed to do. Therefore, any individual standing
on the sidewalk and simply running away from a few cars does not justify a lawful search.
The majority in the Supreme Court argues that intrusion in the Terry stop is minimal. On
the other hand, the minority argues that there are not enough facts to determine a suspicious
flight. Lastly, this stop and frisk did not violate the 4th amendment, simply because investigating
further is considered lawful.