The Supremes: Fleeing from Police Grounds for Search

C

ChrisL

New member
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).]
 
And I thought this was about, <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Baby, baby, baby, where did our love go?"[/quote] LOL I love this site! :D

Whatever happened to good ol' probable cause?

------------------
Be mentally deliberate but muscularly fast. Aim for just above the belt buckle Wyatt Earp
"It is error alone that needs government support; truth can stand by itself." Tom Jefferson
If you have to shoot a man, shoot him in the guts, it may not kill him... sometimes they die slow, but it'll paralyze his brain and arm and the fight is all but over Wild Bill Hickok
Remember: When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up.
45 ACP: Give 'em a new navel! BigG
 
I don't necessarily disagree with that ruling. There are many instances where some very real and very dangerous felons are caught just because they think the police are on to them. What needs to be looked at is why he ran in he first place. He had a gun. That should not be against the law, unless he has a violent criminal history. Running is nothing more than an admission of guilt that has yet to be discovered. It would be foolish to ignore it. At the same time this has the smell of "abuse" all over it. Many of our laws fly in the face of our Constitution, and in them is where most of the occurences of abuse take place. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let's get rid of the bad laws first and see if the baby cleans up.
 
but will not noticing the pursuing police car for 30 seconds be grounds for the searching of your car?

dZ
 
BigG:

This from a career as a CA LEO: a physical arrest requires probable cause. The criteria for a field detention, in which the detainee generally cannot legally be prevented from ending the contact, requires a lower standard that of reasonable suspicion which is what this ruling seems to be about. Reasonable cause is the next higher standard and that is most commonly applied in the justification of a search which is not incidental to a physical arrest.

dz:

Most all the vehicle pursuits I was ever in that resulted in a search of the violator's vehicle went for a whole lot longer than 30 seconds and those that didn't were because the vehicle was abandoned by the driver and or occupant(s) who fled on foot. In either case there were other factors present which provided the necessary legal cause to search the car.


[This message has been edited by SKN (edited January 13, 2000).]
 
Well I guess the excuse of "but officer this is the first well illumated place I could stop and feel safe, you might have been one of those fakes" will prompty be answered with "to bad Grandma get out and spread em so I can cuff you and search your car, you were attempting to flee" I can see abuse written all over this.
 
Brasso...I'm not sure I can agree with the 'running is an admission of guilt yet undiscovered' logic. I agree with your premise that having a gun should not make him guilty unless he is a felon. That said, try and think of some reasons you might leave an area if a caravan of police show up. I live in a nice area of town, but if I saw a load of police show up in multiple vehicles I don't think I'd stand around too long. My inclination would be to move, quickly, to an area of safety as something bad is about to go down.

Granted, the accused sounds like he had reason to evade, but running should not be the sole criteria for becoming suspect, as it sounds like in this case. Probably alot of kids in that area would run, whether or not they were 'guilty' of anything. I'd lean more towards your 'has the smell of of "abuse"' version of this.

Chris..

[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited January 13, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited January 13, 2000).]
 
My personal favorite is "Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion." Now does that give anyone the creeps or what??? Can remaining silent be considered evasive behavior????? I'm sure that many things could be considered evasive behavior. It just depends on what kind of cop you get stuck with. Can anyone say ABUSE :eek:. Kind of like we need more tools to seize the property of drug dealers. Look what happend there. Chances of the same thing happening with this stupid decision are pretty high.

------------------
If stupidity hurt, most government officials would be in agony.
 
What about driving thru your hometown and seeing a roadblock for registration and insurance--or for alcohol check--or for illegal alien checkpoing. No, I don't drink and drive,no I don't smuggle aliens, and yes I have registration and insurance. But screw em, I don't want anything to do with people who violate my constitutional rights. I don't care what the Supremes say--they are politically motivated anyway.

------------------
From my cold dead hands.
 
Ok, before we get all up in a dander that the Supreme Court just took away another right, lets look at what the decision said and what it didn't say.

It did NOT say that fleeing is grounds to search. It did say that fleeing at the approach of an officer may (combined with other factors) consitute grounds for a stop and frisk (Terry Search).

This is an account of the case that resulted in the decision:

In the summer of 1995, 8 uniformed officers in a 4 car convoy converged on an area of Chicagos West side known for heavy narcotics trafficking, anticipating finding a crowd of people including lookouts, dealers and customers engaged in the buying and selling of drugs.

Officers spotted a man (later identified as ex-con William Wardlow) standing next to a building, holding an opaque bag. Wardlow looked in the officers' direction then fled on foot through a gangway and alley.

The officers intecepted Wardlow and immediately conducted a protective pat down search for weapons, because experience told the officers that it was common for weapons to be in the near vicinity of narcotics transactions.

During the frisk, an officer squeezed the bag Wardlow was carrying and felt a heavy hard object similar in shape to a handgun. The bag was opened and a handgun and five rounds of ammunition were discovered.

A motion to supress the evidence was denied by the initial trial court. This was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court and that is how it got to the US Supreme Court.

So lets go over the circumstances:
1. The subject was in a high crime area known for illegal narcotics trafficing.

2. The police officers involved were in an operation designed to disrupt the operations of this open air drug market by their very presence.

3. Wardlow fled at the first sight of the uniformed officers, even though they had not approached him.

Now lets discuss some of the parts of the decision that the media conveniently omitted in their account of the decision.

"It was not merely [his] presence in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking that aroused the officers' suspicion, but his unprovoked flight upon noticing the police. In past cases the court has recognized that nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. In reviewing the propriety of an officer's conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences drawn from suspicious behavior, and we cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty from judges or law enforcement officials where none exists. Thus, the determination of reasonable suspician must be based on commonsense judgements and inferences about human behavior.

Unprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate. Flight, by it's very nature, is not 'going about one's business'; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and investigate further does not establish a violation of the 4th Amendment, even though there may indeed be innocent reasons for fleeing from the police.

Officers are entitled to briefly detain individuals to resolve ambiguity about there behavior and the risk that some innocent people may be stopped is acceptable. If the officer does not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, the individual must be allowed to go on his way."

NOTE: The above was copied from the bulletin posted at the PD.

So for a minute lets forget that this is a drug case. (We all know how myself and many others feel about drug laws) Lets say that you are an officer assigned to this detail and you are making a show of force in an area where illegal activity is often openly conducted. Lets say an open air fencing operation. Past experience in this area tells you that a good portion of the people hanging out are burglars selling their wares. As you arrive a man who is holding an opaque plastic bag runs. So is it reasonable to assume that in an area where burglars meet to sell their booty a man holding a bag runs at your approach that he may be trying to conceal a crime or the proceeds from a crime?

So after running down the subject, is it reasonable to assume that he may be armed because many people who frequent open air fencing operations are armed to protect themselves and their ill gotten gain? Is it then unreasonable to conduct a pat down search for a weapon for your safety and the subjects?

Has anyone got different thoughts now that they've read a little more of the wording of the decision?

Police work is hard. And it's meant to be, the same laws that release guilty people because of a technicality protect us all from abuse.

We have to have some means of keeping order. This rule like every other one will be broken and abused by someone. We need to weed out the abusers and punish them....In my world violation of the public trust would be the most serious crime on the books.

Jeff
 
Not much. The statements vary in ther wording a bit too much. There is reference to flight as being enough justification for the search. Later they state that "Officers are entitled to briefly detain individuals to resolve ambiguity about there behavior and the risk that some innocent people may be stopped is acceptable." Combine this with "the determination of reasonable suspician must be based on commonsense judgements and inferences about human behavior" and my nervousness is not eased much. Ambiguity in behavior is a pretty general term as is common sense. You need to remember that a number of these people feel that it is common sense telling them that removing guns from people's hands will eliminate crime. That speaks volumes for their version of common sense. I would have been happier if they would have been specific with the flight issue throughout the statement. Right now it is up to the cop to decide if your behavior is ambiguous or outside the realm of normal human behavior.
 
Remember that 'Reasonable Suspicion' is best defined as anything that makes you go, "Huh?"

'Flight' is too ambiguous a term to be defined specifically. If you try to get specific with it, you'll jsut wind up with a document longer than the Texas penal Code.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited January 13, 2000).]
 
Taz,
Who should decide if behavior is ambiguous or beyond the relm of normal? My point is that we will always have to rely on someone to do this unless we choose to disband all police forces or only allow arrests to be made for crimes committed in the presence of an officer.

If you were an officer would you find the subject fleeing suspicious? Can you reasonably tell me that given the circumstances in the case that you wouldn't?

Perhaps we can seat a special jury and have them on duty 24-7 to weigh all of these factors for the officer and guide him in how to respond. A quick call to headquarters with a description of the situation and let them decide.

Not very practical now is it. People aren't "rousted" on gut feelings. An officer has to be able to articulate what specific things caused him to detain this individual. All the court said was that in this case the factors that the officers articulated met the standards of resonable suspicion for the stop and the Terry search. They did not say that anytime someone flees at the sight of the police they are fair game to stop and search.

Believe me defense lawyers will still try to get evidence supressed and if the complete circumstances don't fit the reasonable man test, the court will supress the evidence. This ruling affects one case and the law as it applies in Illinois. Lower courts in Wisconsin, Indiana and Georgia have upheld that unprovoked flight is resonable suspicion for a stop, while courts in New Jersey, Michigan and Colorado have ruled it isn't.

Jeff
 
Does this mean anyone out jogging can be frisked by the police( assuming they are jogging in the opposite direction)? Or will criminals now wear jogging suits?
 
The first thing that this reminded me of was growing up in the old south. Remember hearing white folks say " if you see a colored running, he's done something wrong". I could fully understand the circumstances which led the court to its conclusion, but this cutting edge (backwards, really!) decision sends the wrong message to all in our society. Just wonder what is next! Will we have to bow our heads at the presence of law enforcement, never daring to making eye contact with them, so not to raise suspicion. I remember the colored doing the same thing in the old days too.
 
It took them 30 years to come to this conclusion?!? Back in my teens, when we were bored one of the thing we did to relieve that was walk down the street. When a cop car was sighted we would point at it and run. Of course they would give chase (calling in other crusiers to help) until they had us surrounded. Of course we would get searched, and even a few times get hauled in and our parents called. But the point is IMO this has been true for 30 years.

In my defense all I can say was that either I was dropped on my head as a child or subcounciously I knew I was going to be a Marine and I was practiceing my evasion tactics. ;)

------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
Skeeter,
Well, I somehow don't think you could convince anyone that someone out jogging in the opposite direction from you was fleeing. :) Try this scenario, you Officer Skeeter are out on patrol in a residential area of your jurisdiction. It's 7:30 AM and you see a man in a jogging suit standing on the sidewalk. The man looks in the direction of your squad car and runs off in the opposite direction from the way you are going. You pull the squad up to the curb, jump out and run down the man (you really wanted to try those new Bates uniform shoes that feel as good as Nike cross trainers :)). Catching up with the man, you stop him, ask him why he ran from you and pat him down for weapons. When you squeeze the pocket of his running jacket you feel a long thin hard object. Thinking it may be a lock blade knife you retrieve it intending to hold it for the duration of the interview. When you pull the object from his pocket you discover that it is a makeup case like a woman would carry lipstick and eyebrow liner in. You open the case and discover a single edge razor blade, a small spoon and a vial of white powder. You arrest the jogger for Possesion of a Controlled Substance. The way you are interpreting this decision, you feel that this would be legal, right?

I think the probable result of your big arrest of the day would be this;

The jogger hires an attorney who files a motion to suppress the arrest based on insufficient grounds to detain and search his client. The judge hears the defendant say "I was out jogging, I stopped to tie my shoe, I stood up, and resumed my run. I noticed the squad car, but didn't think anything of it, I see them all the time when I'm out running."

The judge reviews the Supreme Court case that we are talking about and rules that the drugs and equipment seized are "fruit of the poisonous tree" because you did not prove that your " reasonable suspicion was not sufficient to justify stopping the jogger from going on about his business.

You walk out of court embarressed and angry at the system muttering under your breath and complaining to the states attorney about the new Supreme Court decision not being worth the paper it's printed on. The states attorney sends a memo to your chief telling him to enroll Officer Skeeter in the next criminal law update class. The joggers attorney files a civil suit against you and your department for violating his clients civil rights.

Maybe Abruzzi will weigh in with a real legal opinion, but I don't see this decision as giving the police unlimited power to detain anyone who flees from their approach.

Jeff
 
After reading the SC decision, I got a tingling sensation on the back of my neck. I'm not sure what to think of this. In both extremes of the applied, there are problems. Such as the case the decision was made on. Gut instinct(I guess) made the LE detain the "perp??(of what crime)" and their search yeilded a firearm, and ammo. On the otherhand, if the SHTF, I wan't to be well away from it, and the quickest way is to scuttle my arse out of there. Does that make me a criminal?

When I, and it happens, see an LE in my mirror, lights going, I ALWAYS pull over immediately. Reasons are as follows,

1. He/She might be trying to get around, in response to an emergency. And it's the law not to impede emergency vehicles.

2. He/She might be trying to pull me over for something, in which case, why piss him/her off by playing stuipid??

This reminds me of a sniper motto,
"If you run, you'll only die tired".

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
 
As I stated earlier, the case used to bring about this is not what I have a serious problem with. It is the rather broad interpretation that came about as a result of this case. Yes I would agree with the statement that it is outside normal behavior to see a cop and run, but would I follow??? No, because I assume that everybody is innocent until there is some empirical evidence to give me cause to chase. There are way too many logical reasons for someone runnig away. Maybe they got the snot beat out of them last time a cop was around. Maybe they just forgot they left the iron on. Maybe the sight of ninja's carrying machine guns scared the bejeebers out of him. Maybe they saw a gangbanger accross the street. Maybe they heard someone calling their name. The list can go on and on. Unless there was a crime reported in the area that I am responding to, or the guy fits the description of someone on the look out for list or something empirical combined with he flight I would not do a damn thing.

As I stated earlier the problem with this decision is that it is too damn broad and gives way too much lee way for the cops to use in violating people's rights. Just think of the way things were worded. Behavior outside the realm of "normal". Or evasive behavior. Define them both for me please. If I decide that I am going to keep my mouth shut during a traffic stop is that evasive??? Considering that most people do not do this, it is definitely outside "normal". Does this mean that the cop should search me. Maybe I refuse to submit to a search of my car. Is that evasive or outside "normal". Based on how many people I see allowing their cars to be searched it would be considered outside normal. So here we go again getting searched. To answer your question of who should decide what is normal behavior and what is not: nobody. Normal behavior differs for from person to person. I doubt that you would advocate cops searching mentally retarded folks because their behavior patterns are outside that of "normal" America. That is what makes this country great. We dont have to behave according to a set og government approved sanctions. we dont have to wera uniforms, recite the party lines and so on. The only thing we have to do is obey the law and it is not illegal to exercise our rights, even though "normal" Americans cant remember them well enough to excercise them or are afraid to.

As far as being able to articulate a suspicion being a barrier to abuse; think about the line of progression we have gone though in the past few decades. We started out with having to have some sort of evidence that yu did something wrong before they coud initiate an investigation. Then we progress to having probable cause, as in we think we smell dope... Now we get to he was behaving in an abnormal way, or he was being evasive. We have transformed from having an objective reasons for searching/investgating to purely subjective standards for searching/investigating. You may not see anything wrong with that, but I do. My opinion is that this is a serious step in the wrong direction. We have made it easier and easier for police to justify their actions. My fear is that if we continue along this same progression we will one day get to the point where there will have to be no justification. This is just one more step.

------------------
If stupidity hurt, most government officials would be in agony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top