Illinois Vs.

Wardlow (2000)
As told by Alexander Nazimolv-Davis Esq., Danielle Ohumukini Esq., Travis Fortaliza Esq., and
Roland Patzi Esq.
In Chicago, Illinois, Officers Nolan and Harvey were working as uniformed officers in the
special operations section of the Chicago Police Department, canvassing a local neighborhood
known for drug dealing. The officers were traveling in the last vehicle of an eight officer, four car
caravan because they expected to find a large crowd of people including lookouts, dealers and
their customers. Officer Nolan observed respondent Wardlow standing next to the building
holding an opaque bag, and when he looked in the direction of the officers, he fled. Once
officers caught up to him, they performed a protective pat down to check for weapons. They also
noticed the white opaque bag and performed an exterior search of the bag. Upon feeling a
heavy, hard object similar to the shape of a gun, the officer opened the bag and discovered a .
38-caliber handgun with 5 live rounds of ammunition. The officers arrested Wardlow. Was the
officers stop and frisk of Wardlow justified under Terry v. Ohio?
Rule (as from Terry v. Ohio):
To find an appropriate rule concerning this case, we need to look for cases with similar
circumstances. These circumstances can be seen in Terry v. Ohio to decide whether Officer
Nolans stop and frisk was justified: a police officer is entitled for the protection of himself and
others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in
an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him (Terry v. Ohio).
...careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a persons clothing all over his or her body in an
attempt to find weapons is not a search (page 99, pgh 4)
But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct -- necessarily swift action predicated
upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat -- which historically has not been,
and, as a practical matter, could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure (pg 100 - 101, pgh
4 and pgh 1)
...the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together
with rational inferences from those facts, reasonable warrant that intrusion (pg 101, pgh 2)
Counter^^
*random fact* American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in
this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are
wounded. Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with
guns and knives (pg 102, pgh 2)

A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest, however, must, like any other
search . . . be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be

used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something
less than a full search (pg 103, pgh 3)

Analysis/Application

Reasonable, well-defined suspicion that criminal activity is afoot needs to be

established in order to stop and frisk someone. For example, this is like Terry v Ohio
where the police can have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Officers did have
reasonable suspicion to frisk Wardlow because, as the policeman said, he ran right
towards us. Wardlow was running away from the cop and looking suspicious so they
had the right to frisk him.
The officers arrived at a neighborhood that is known for selling drugs. They
caught up to Wardlow because they thought he was running away but they found him
carrying a gun. In Terry v Ohio, they had enough evidence because he and his friends
were acting suspicious. In this case the policemans suspicion was right and they found
Terry and his friend carrying guns. He was in a high crime area and fled from the police
officers.
There was reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Wardlow because he was 1) in a high crime
area; and 2) he ran away when he saw the police.The fact that it was a high crime area
wasnt sufficient by itself, but officers can't ignore the fact that there was a lot of crime in that
area. (pg 119)
It was not merely respondents presence in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking that aroused
the officer's suspicion but his unprovoked flight upon noticing the police. Our cases have also
recognized that nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable
suspicion. (pg 122, pgh 2)
Headlong flightwherever it occursis the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily
indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such. (pg 122 paragraph 3)
Thus, the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on commonsense judgments
and inferences about human behavior.
But unprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate. Flight, by its very nature, is not
going about ones business; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing officers confronted with
such flight to stop the fugitive and investigate further is quite consistent with the individuals right
to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning.(

Conclusion:

Was the officers stop and frisk of Wardlow justified under Terry v. Ohio? Yes,
because he was running in the direction away from the cops upon his noticing them. His
flight reaction made seem look like he was doing something wrong. His running away
from the cops warranted the cops suspicion to think, he looked in our direction and
began fleeing, said officer Nolan. This made us think he must be doing something
wrong or illegal, or why else would he run?

Arguments We Need to Counter:

(pg. 125, pgh 1) Cannot be sure respondent was fleeing from the officers nor did he recognize
them as such.

(pg. 125, pgh 3) ...unprovoked flight does not invariably lead to reasonable suspicion.