Robert Elenberg

Pd 2
Wardlow Assignment
Wardlow v. Illinois was a case brought before the Supreme Court in 2000, the question
at hand was whether or not unprovoked flight from a police officer justified a light search also
known as a pat down. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state saying that a light search
was constituted by this suspicious behavior. In summary, the argument for the state was that
there were three key factorsFlight, from a clearly identified police officer, without
provocation and the argument on Wardlows behalf was that one who does not wish to speak
with police can go the other way whether he walks, skips, jumps, gets on his bike, or gets in a
car and it would not be cause for suspicion. It was a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote
the majority opinion and Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion.
The opinion presented by the Chief Justice was that the protective pat down conducted
by the two Chicago police officers that turned up a .38-calliber handgun did not violate the
defendant, Wardlows, 4
th
amendment rate was not violated. He said the officers have the right
to make a stop if they believe crime is afoot. Wardlows running from the police met those
standards for a stop. He laid out the guidelines for why Wardlows arrest was not a violation of
his rights, running/fleeing from a clearly identified police officer in a high crime area and the
arrest met all those standards for a pat down. The flight was nervous and evasive and most
importantly it aroused suspicion and would suffice as probable cause in the highest court in the
land.
The dissenting opinion as written by Justice Stevens brings up the fact that the entire
ruling, practically, is based off the unclear and brief testimony of officer Nolan, one of the two
arresting officers. He says there is a factual insufficiency. He points out officer Nolan did not
recall whether or not he was in a marked car and that takes away from the clearly identifiable
police officer portion of the justifications for a stop and pat down. Justice Stevens continuously
re-enforces his point that there was just not enough to say the officers had probable cause to
stop and search Wardlow, therefore Wardlows 4
th
Amendment rights were violated and the
evidence which came as a result of this search (the gun) should have been suppressed therefore
hindering the prosecution and resulting in the cases dismissal. He also pointed out the fact that
it was flight in a high crime are does arouse more suspicion but rather less because aside from
the police there are many other factors in that environment to flee from.
Both Justices had very valid points and Wardlow a valid case, he had his day in court
and lost and therefore must suffer the consequences. This case set a precedent from then on, as
to the circumstances under which to make a justifiable terry stop. It was made clear by the chief
justice and I reiterate now, flight from a clearly identifiable police officer in a high crime area.
Had the case been presented 5 years earlier or 5 years later and very easily could have been 5-4
in favor of Wardlow, but in the end the court re-enforced the trust and faith we have in our
men and woman of law enforcement to act justly and in the best interest of the people they
protect and serve.