Illinois v. Wardlow US Supreme Court Essay Example

there was reasonable suspicion in such a situation to warrant a Terry stop. The Court argued that commonsense inferences concerning human behavior have to be used to determine reasonable suspicion and the officers were justified in suspecting the defendant’s involvement in criminal exploits based on the fact that he tried to flee and was in an area renowned for crime. Officers are not supposed to ignore the significant characteristics of an area when deciding whether further probing is warranted and hasty flight is indicative of misconduct. The right to refuse questioning is exercisable where there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and in such instances, a person has a right to ignore the officer and go about his/her business. In such situations, any refusal to comply does not suffice the minimal level of impartial justification necessary for seizure or detention. In this case, however, Officer Nolan had sufficient reason to suspect that Wardlow was engaged in criminal activity and so to probe further.

Justice John Paul agreed in part to the Court’s rejection of a proposed rule by the state courts to sanction the detention of anyone who attempts to flee at the sight of a police vehicle, but also dissented in part when he rejected the idea that such flight could never warrant a Terry stop. Accordingly, he argued that unprovoked flight even in high crime zones does not automatically amount to reasonable suspicion to give grounds for a Terry stop and frisking. This case, in essence, shifts the balance towards police freedom in contrast with the rights of individuals. Nonetheless, the question as to how far this case limits the ability of citizens

to shun the police and yet not be stopped remains. Will walking into a corner store when the police show up provide sufficient grounds for a Terry stop? Though it may seem unlikely, the outcome of this case creates such issues.