The Risk of Evading the Police

A landmark decision by the Supreme Court has ramifications for encounters with law enforcement, and what you should know when faced with a police stop.

In the urban landscape of Chicago, where city blocks are often marked by varying crime statistics, a transformative legal event unfolded. When a certain Mr. Wardlow decided to flee upon noticing a police car within what was designated a "high-crime" area, his actions led to a significant pursuit. The officers eventually apprehended him, conducted a pat-down, and discovered an illegal weapon. Wardlow's subsequent legal battle centered around the admissibility of the weapon as evidence, contending that the police lacked constitutional grounds for the chase and search. The initial court ruling went against him, and the decision eventually ascended to the zenith of the U.S. judiciary.

On the notable date of January 12, 2000, in Illinois v. Wardlow, the United States Supreme Court deemed the police actions constitutional, affirming the trial court's decision to allow the evidence. This case effectively reinforces a widely held notion: evading the police does not exempt one from lawful apprehension and search.

The ruling's implications reach far, prompting a need to delve into the intricacies of search and seizure law. Under the Fourth Amendment, lawful searches require probable cause—a threshold with varying interpretations. It suggests sufficient objective information leaning towards either a crime having taken place or one in process, with the suspect's involvement apparent. Typically, officers must secure a search warrant, a judicially sanctioned document, before conducting a search. However, exigent circumstances may permit exceptions.

The act conducted in Wardlow's case, however, did not constitute a traditional search but a "stop and frisk," harking back to a Supreme Court directive over three decades old. The two-step guideline permits police to:

  1. Halt an individual in a public area upon cultivating "reasonable suspicion" of their involvement in criminal activities, and
  2. Conduct a minimally invasive pat-down to ensure their own safety, should they perceive a potential threat from the individual being armed.

If this frisk yields evidence related to a crime, its use in court is contingent on the initial "reasonable suspicion" justification. This term, while establishing a bar lower than probable cause, requires more concrete reasoning than an unfounded gut feeling—grounded in observable facts rather than instinct.

In the case of Wardlow, the Court concluded that:

  • His presence in a locale notorious for drug trafficking, coupled with
  • His impulsive decision to flee upon spotting law enforcement,

constituted sufficient basis to invoke the "reasonable suspicion" standard, validating the stop and subsequent frisk.

One might ponder the outcome had Wardlow remained stationary. Prior judgments have clarified that high crime prevalence in isolation does not equate to reasonable cause for a stop and frisk. It was precisely his attempt to elude the police that tipped the scale in proving reasonable suspicion.

For guidance on search and seizure law, or if confronted with similar situations, reach out to William Weinberg for a Free Consultation. The firm is dedicated to helping you understand your rights and ensuring they are protected. You can contact us at (949) 474-8008. Our knowledgeable attorneys are here to provide the legal support you need when facing complex legal issues.

Client Reviews
He was open, honest and compassionate (qualities you don't always find in an attorney) and his credentials proved that he is more than qualified to handle this complicated case. JoAnn H.
Not only did [my case] get resolved with great efficiency, [Mr. Weinberg and his team] were very open with me and kept the lines of communication flowing which I appreciated greatly. Ryan T.
There are many things about our conversations that told me that bill was an honest guy and knew what he was talking about. Amy C.