Elizabeth Colin

Period 3
10/13/14
Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)

The Illinois v. Wardlow case decides over a whether the police stop and frisk was
constitutional. In a previous case Terry v. Ohio the court ruled that police may conduct stop and
frisks when the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal wrong doing and the search is
limited in scope only looking for weapons. The question in Wardlow is whether unprovoked
flight from a police officer in a high crime neighborhood gives the police enough reasonable
suspicion to conduct a terry stop. The court was split five-four in the decision, and ruled with the
government stating that the search was not a fourth amendment violation.
Chief Justice Rhenquist made the majority opinion supporting the state. His main claim is
that the individual factors of the scenario do not justify but them all together is enough for
reasonable suspicion. First the police knew that this was an area of heavy drug trafficking and
could conclude that there is high possibility of weapons being present, that fact alone was not
enough to suspect Wardlows gun possession. He also makes a notice of the unprovoked flight
and compares it to refusal to cooperate. Chief Justice firmly stands by that refusal to
cooperate is not qualification to conduct a terry stop. Though he states that unprovoked flight is
different, that it is the opposite of going about ones business. All of the factors together is
enough to suspect ambiguity therefore the high crime and unprovoked flight together creates
suspicion.
On the other side of courtroom, the dissenting opinion led by Justice Stevens bases their
claim on the lack of facts. The police car was a part of a four car caravan and no one testifies

whether the cars were marked or officers were in uniform, which then leads to whether Wardlow
fled from a clearly identifiable police officer. However, even if they were identifiable there is no
testimony on the amount of people present and the speed of the cars. The cause of Wardlows
flight could have been protection from upcoming danger that he believed the police were
attending since there are four cars perhaps racing down the street. In addition, the fact that the
area is well known to be high crime could have cause innocent motivations for unprovoked
flight in attempt to reach safety as soon as possible.
The two opinions in the Illinois v. Wardlow case demonstrated the different views on
whether unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable police officer in a high crime area justifies
as reasonable suspicion. In the end the court ruled it does and that the conduct of the Terry stop
was not a violation of the fourth amendment.