HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-2000 ArticlesPolice May Stop, Frisk Those Who Flee at
Sight of Officer
N¢w�vrcxalc,r..am
-'Bt_0 A!taI"ternetGuide Court Says Action Can Lead to'Reasonable Suspicion'
Print Edition
T(xlay's National
Articles
Inside "A" Section
Front Page Articles
On Our Site
Tor) News/Breaking
News
Politics Section
National Section
By.k)an Bishrpic
Washington Post Stith Writer
Thursday, January 13, 2000, Page A 10
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that police may sometimes stop
and frisk a person who runs at the mere sight of an officer, in a
unanimous decision that gives police more leeway on the streets.
In a case arising against a backdrop of public fear about crime as well
as concerns over aggressive police tactics, the court refused to adopt a
blanket rule that a person can be stopped simply because he runs away
after seeing the police. That position was advocated by the state of
Illinois in the case and endorsed by 17 other states.
Instead, the court said that such a reaction can be an important factor
in determining whether police have a "reasonable suspicion" adequate
for stopping a suspect. The decision expanded the court's decades -old
rules about when police can stop and search people without a specific
reason to believe a crime has occurred but did not break significant
new ground.
"Headlong flight --whenever it occurs --is the consummate act of
evasion," Chief Justice William Ii. Rehnquist wrote for the court. "It is
not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive
of such."
But Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by three other justices,
emphasized that some people might have innocent reasons for dodging
police. "Among some citizens, particularly minorities and those
residing in high crime areas, there is ... the possibility that the fleeing
person is entirely innocent, but ... believes that contact with the
police can itself be dangerous," Stevens wrote in an opinion signed by
Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G.
Breyer.
Those four justices joined the chief s opinion allowing flight to be a
major factor in whether individuals are stopped but dissented on his
resolution of the case of a Chicago man who bolted when he saw four
police cars approach.
1 or2
trl3�oo s<.za
I "loll Vr: �r�u. ........ ....... ......... .......... �
The majority said officers had sufficient reason to stop William
Wardlow, noting that he was also in an area of heavy narcotics
trafficking and carrying a white bag. Stevens said those factors were
"too generic and susceptible to innocent explanation."
The touchstones for the case, Illinois v. Wardlow, were the Fourth
Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches, and the justices'
1968 ruling on situations in which police are suspicious of an
individual but lack specific grounds to believe a crime has occurred. In
Terry v. Ohio, the court said police can stop and frisk someone
if --after considering all the circumstances of the scene --an officer has
reason to believe he is dangerous.
Wardlow, who was caught carrying an illegal handgun after officers
pursued him in the 1995 incident, argued at trial that officers lacked
the grounds to pursue and search him. An Illinois trial court disagreed,
but the state Supreme Court ruled that his sudden flight was not
enough to justify a stop.
Reaction among defendants' rights groups was mixed. George Kendall
of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said he was
concerned about police targeting minorities but expressed relief that
the court did not adopt the broad Illinois position. "The law is largely
left where it was before," he said.
But Tracey Maclin, a Boston University law professor who had filed a
"friend of the court" brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties
Union and other groups, said the ruling will lead police to use flight as
an excuse for chasing individuals who rightfully fear police.
0 Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
Ye110W Pages
2 0(?
I/13'00 9:26 AM