DC, not sure if you saw this yet. Copied from AK-47.net
Supreme Court: Fleeing at sight of police can be cause for search
January 12, 2000
Web posted at: 11:47 p.m. EST (0447 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person
fleeing from police merely at the sight of them can create enough suspicion for police to
stop and search that person.
The reasonable search decision was based on a Chicago case where Samuel Wardlow
fled as a caravan of police cars entered a high-crime area.
Police caught up with Wardlow on the next block. During a pat-down search, they
found a loaded .38- caliber pistol and five rounds of ammunition in a plastic bag he was
carrying.
Wardlow was sentenced to two years in prison for unlawful use of a weapon. His
lawyers appealed, arguing that the search violated the Constitution's Fourth
Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
"There was no other factor that would indicate that a crime was afoot," said attorney
Lynn Weisberg. "The only thing that Mr. Wardlow did was that he ran."
Court's reasoning
A state appeals court threw out Wardlow's conviction, and the Illinois Supreme Court
agreed. But by a slim majority, the nation's highest court disagreed.
"Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion" to
justify a stop, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court. "Headlong flight --
wherever it occurs -- is the consummate act of evasion."
Rehnquist added, "Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and
investigate further is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business
or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning."
He also wrote, "A high crime area (is) among the relevant contextual considerations."
The ruling stopped short of giving police a blanket right to stop anyone who runs after
seeing the police. "Reasonable suspicion determination must be based on common sense
judgments and inferences about human behavior," the court said.
Police praise decision
The decision drew praise from the National Association of Police Organizations, which
said it would allow police to investigate "highly suspicious conduct" and that "effective
law enforcement requires no less."
"The Supreme Court has said you balance the right of an individual -- to an individual's
right of privacy - - with the right of society for effective law enforcement," said
Stephen McSpadden of NAPO, which represents more than 4,000 police unions and
associations -- including 250,000 officers.
Civil libertarians worried
Wednesday's decision worried some civil libertarians.
Tracey Maclin, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the decision "shows
how out of touch the majority of the court is with what happens on the streets of
America with respect to police- citizen encounters."
Maclin said, "One of the basic liberties of this country is that you've got a right to say
'no' to the cops," adding that the ruling's practical effect will be to allow police to stop
anyone who flees in high- crime areas.
In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that police can stop and question someone without a
warrant if there is reasonable suspicion the person is involved in a crime or about to
commit one.
Rehnquist's opinion was joined by justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia,
Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G.
Breyer agreed with the court's decision not to adopt a rule that would always authorize
police to stop people who run at the sight of police.
But the four, in an opinion written by Stevens, disagreed with the majority's conclusion
that Chicago police were justified in stopping Wardlow in 1995.
*********************************************
My thoughts were it reminds me of the logic of the door gunner in Full Metal Jacket where he explains how he shoots the indigenous population. "If they run, they're VC. If they don't run, they're well trained VC."
Positively medieval.
Chris..
[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited January 13, 2000).]
Supreme Court: Fleeing at sight of police can be cause for search
January 12, 2000
Web posted at: 11:47 p.m. EST (0447 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person
fleeing from police merely at the sight of them can create enough suspicion for police to
stop and search that person.
The reasonable search decision was based on a Chicago case where Samuel Wardlow
fled as a caravan of police cars entered a high-crime area.
Police caught up with Wardlow on the next block. During a pat-down search, they
found a loaded .38- caliber pistol and five rounds of ammunition in a plastic bag he was
carrying.
Wardlow was sentenced to two years in prison for unlawful use of a weapon. His
lawyers appealed, arguing that the search violated the Constitution's Fourth
Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
"There was no other factor that would indicate that a crime was afoot," said attorney
Lynn Weisberg. "The only thing that Mr. Wardlow did was that he ran."
Court's reasoning
A state appeals court threw out Wardlow's conviction, and the Illinois Supreme Court
agreed. But by a slim majority, the nation's highest court disagreed.
"Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion" to
justify a stop, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court. "Headlong flight --
wherever it occurs -- is the consummate act of evasion."
Rehnquist added, "Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and
investigate further is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business
or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning."
He also wrote, "A high crime area (is) among the relevant contextual considerations."
The ruling stopped short of giving police a blanket right to stop anyone who runs after
seeing the police. "Reasonable suspicion determination must be based on common sense
judgments and inferences about human behavior," the court said.
Police praise decision
The decision drew praise from the National Association of Police Organizations, which
said it would allow police to investigate "highly suspicious conduct" and that "effective
law enforcement requires no less."
"The Supreme Court has said you balance the right of an individual -- to an individual's
right of privacy - - with the right of society for effective law enforcement," said
Stephen McSpadden of NAPO, which represents more than 4,000 police unions and
associations -- including 250,000 officers.
Civil libertarians worried
Wednesday's decision worried some civil libertarians.
Tracey Maclin, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the decision "shows
how out of touch the majority of the court is with what happens on the streets of
America with respect to police- citizen encounters."
Maclin said, "One of the basic liberties of this country is that you've got a right to say
'no' to the cops," adding that the ruling's practical effect will be to allow police to stop
anyone who flees in high- crime areas.
In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that police can stop and question someone without a
warrant if there is reasonable suspicion the person is involved in a crime or about to
commit one.
Rehnquist's opinion was joined by justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia,
Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G.
Breyer agreed with the court's decision not to adopt a rule that would always authorize
police to stop people who run at the sight of police.
But the four, in an opinion written by Stevens, disagreed with the majority's conclusion
that Chicago police were justified in stopping Wardlow in 1995.
*********************************************
My thoughts were it reminds me of the logic of the door gunner in Full Metal Jacket where he explains how he shoots the indigenous population. "If they run, they're VC. If they don't run, they're well trained VC."
Positively medieval.
Chris..
[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited January 13, 2000).]