Illinois v. Wardlow
**Overview of Illinois v. Wardlow**
Illinois v. Wardlow is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of reasonable suspicion in the context of police encounters. The case involved William "Sam" Wardlow, who fled upon noticing police officers in a high-crime area of Chicago known for narcotics activity. The Supreme Court ruled that an individual's flight from police in such a context can establish reasonable suspicion, thereby permitting officers to conduct a search and seizure. This decision reinforced the standards set in the earlier case of Terry v. Ohio, which allows for "Terry stops" based on an officer's assessment without requiring probable cause.
The ruling has sparked considerable debate regarding its implications for civil liberties, particularly the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. Critics argue that the decision disproportionately affects minority communities, as policies based on this ruling, like the New York Police Department's Stop-and-Frisk, have been criticized for racial profiling. The dissenting opinions within the Court highlighted the potential for innocent reasons for fleeing, suggesting that the broad interpretation of reasonable suspicion could lead to unjust outcomes. Overall, Illinois v. Wardlow has had profound effects on law enforcement practices and the balance between public safety and individual rights.
Illinois v. Wardlow
The Case: US Supreme Court ruling on what constitutes reasonable suspicion precipitating search and seizure
Date: Decided on January 12, 2000
In deference to typical human behavior in response to sighting a police officer, the Supreme Court ruled that fleeing from an officer, particularly in a high crime area, establishes reasonable suspicion. The court also ruled that consequent search and seizure of the suspicious individual is legally permissible.
While on patrol in a high-crime area in Chicago, Illinois, police officers noticed a man fleeing in an area of the city infamous for narcotics trafficking. This man, William “Sam” Wardlow, was seen holding a bag. After his capture, officers searched for a weapon and found a gun. Such a search, known as a Terry stop, is allowable if officers can articulate reasonable suspicion, as determined in Terry v. Ohio (1968). Unlike the process for obtaining a search warrant, which requires probable cause, a Terry stop relies solely on an officer’s own evaluation of a situation.
Pending trial, Wardlow submitted a petition, claiming that the discovery of his gun should not be used against him since it was illegally seized. He relied on the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. While an Illinois trial court disagreed with Wardlow’s petition, the Illinois Appellate Court and Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. In response, the US Supreme Court determined that running from the police in a high-crime area creates reasonable suspicion of illicit behavior and warrants search and seizure.
Chief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion for the sharply divided court. The majority contended that while unprovoked flight from police officers could be construed as innocent, the possibility of innocence does not rule out suspicion. They acknowledged that by upholding Terry stops in Wardlow’s situation, innocent people would likely be searched under this broad interpretation of reasonable suspicion. The court’s dissenting justices emphasized the many innocent reasons for flight, claiming that such an array of possibilities could not support wide use of the Terry stop. The justices also cited the case’s tenuous usage of the terms “high-crime area” and “flight” as irresponsibly vague.
Impact
The court’s decision in Illinois v. Wardlow empowered police officers over individual freedoms. The effects have been most severely felt among minority populations. Since the Wardlow decision, a number of policies have been implemented that broadly interpret reasonable suspicion. The New York Police Department’s Stop-and-Frisk policy relies on stopping and searching people in high crime areas in order to deter crime. This policy has been shown to disproportionately target minorities who often live in these areas. Similarly, Arizona’s immigration policy, which uses routine traffic stops to uncover illegal immigrants, has been accused of racial profiling. The decision’s reliance on a police officer’s subjective interpretation of a situation has allowed personal bias and racial profiling to undermine justice, driving a wedge between communities and those employed to protect them.
Bibliography
Del Carmen, Rolando V. and Craig Hemmens, eds. Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court: A Guide to the Major Decisions on Search and Seizure, Privacy, and Individual Rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. E-book.
Kappeler, Victor E. Critical Issues in Police Civil Liability. 4th ed. Long Grove: Waveland P, 2006. Print.