Illinois v. Wardlow: A Case of the Citizen’s Fourth Amendment Rights
According to data from the American Civil Liberties Union, nearly nine out of every ten people stopped and frisked by the police in the United States are completely innocent. This statistic highlights a clear infringement upon the average citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to no unreasonable searches or seizures, as in the case of Illinois v. Wardlow. In this case, Sam Wardlow, a 44-year old black man, was standing on a sidewalk in West Side Chicago when four police cars converged upon the area. Wardlow, who was not visibly engaged in any illegal or suspicious activity, briefly glanced in the direction of the police before fleeing the scene on foot. As the area was well-known
…show more content…
for narcotics trafficking, two of the police officers chose to pursue Wardlow.
They detained him and performed a pat-down search, finding Wardlow in possession of a loaded .38 caliber handgun. Wardlow was arrested and charged for the crime in Cook County Circuit Court after the court denied his attorney’s pretrial motion to suppress the evidence on the basis of the search being unlawful. Later, during the process of appeals, the First Division Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction upon determining that flight from the police, even in a high crime area, does not provide sufficient cause for an investigative stop. The State of Illinois then petitioned the United States Supreme Court and was granted a writ of certiorari. In the consideration of this case, there arises the question of whether or not unprovoked, pre-accusation flight from the police creates reasonable cause for a search and seizure. The stop and frisk of Sam Wardlow by the Chicago …show more content…
police is unconstitutional due to a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Rather than indicating his guilt, Wardlow’s unprovoked flight from the police in a high crime area reveals the nature of his social background and thus should not be used by the police to determine suspicion. Research shows that the residents of high crime areas generally have poor relationships with law enforcement, whom they fear due to cases of police brutality and racial discrimination. Consequently, many people who live in such areas may choose to flee from the police with the hope of avoiding potential involvement and personal harm. Similarly, the 1896 case of Alberty v. United States proves that innocent people often fear being mistaken as guilty or being humiliated by the police, which causes them to flee from the scene. As such, flight from the police prior to any direct contact with them does not always indicate guilt and cannot be used to determine suspicion. In this case, specifically, Wardlow’s decision to flee from the police demonstrates his distrust of law enforcement and fear of accidental incarceration. Drug sweeps are common in West Side Chicago, and Wardlow’s experience with the arrest and search of innocent bystanders may have prompted him to quickly leave the scene. Ultimately, the lack of proof that Wardlow’s flight was due to his involvement in criminal activity and not his personal view of the police establishes that the police’s investigative stop was unconstitutional. Since there was no direct interaction with the police and no other indication of suspicious activity prior to his flight, Wardlow had the right to distance himself from the police without the ensuing pursuit and search by law enforcement.
The testimonies of the police officers involved in this case confirm that Wardlow was not observably engaged in suspicious or criminal activity prior to his flight. As determined by the case of Brown v. Texas (1979), Wardlow had the right to refuse police contact and go on with his own business since there was no individualized suspicion regarding the occurrence of a specific crime. The speed at which Wardlow could leave the area is not specified, and so his flight alone cannot be used to determine suspicion. Running away from the policemen in order to avoid any potential contact with them is legal. Therefore, the Chicago police’s actions of chasing after and searching Wardlow defy a national precedent and should be considered
unlawful. Additionally, as there are many reasons for flight other than criminal activity, the police’s determination that Wardlow’s flight was suspicious solely on the basis of the area’s reputation illustrates their biased discretion. Per the case of Florida v. Royer (1983), citizens have the right to ignore the police and continue on with their usual business if there is no reasonable cause indicating criminal involvement. An officer’s feeling is not considered articulable evidence that explains why someone’s flight is suspicious. Since there was no cause to search Wardlow prior to his flight, the Chicago police did not have any objective evidence indicating his potential guilt. At the same time, Wardlow’s decision to flee the area could be considered normal behavior due to his personal view of the police. Given the social circumstances of a poor and high crime areas, Wardlow’s instinct could have been to exercise his right to speedily avoid contact with the police. As a whole, the Chicago police officers did not have sufficient evidence that would justify their suspicion and provide reasonable cause for the stop and frisk of Sam Wardlow. According to Terry v. Ohio (1968), an officer needs two good reasons to determine cause for a search and seizure. Flight alone most definitely does not justify suspicion, and even in combination with the character of the area, can only be considered as one reason for a stop and frisk. Although the police should be allowed to consider all available information when determining the suspicion of a person, considering flight separately from the reputation of a location immediately places all residents of poor or high crime areas at a disadvantage. Where a person lives or works should not make a person more susceptible to being stopped and frisked without any visible engagement in illegal activity. For these reasons, the search and seizure that discovered Wardlow’s handgun is unconstitutional. As established by the case of Weeks v. United States (1914), the evidence of the gun should be suppressed by the court. Sam Wardlow was stopped and frisked unlawfully and thus should not be found guilty of a criminal offense. Overall, the Chicago police infringed upon Wardlow’s Fourth Amendment rights, which protect all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Due to a lack of reasonable cause for the search, Wardlow had the right to leave the area - no matter the speed of his departure - and avoid contact with the police. As a result, the evidence of Wardlow’s illegal possession of a handgun should be suppressed and his conviction should remain overturned. This case reflects upon the biased discretion of law enforcement in regards to what constitutes as sufficient evidence to allow a search and seizure, proving that the Chicago police department’s actions were unconstitutional.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
In the following paper, I will argue that the loopholes in the 4th amendment to the United States Constitution unfairly target people of color, resulting in higher incarceration rates. In Chapter 2 of the New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander discusses the 4th amendment’s evolution within the court system. Initially, consent searches were used to incriminate people without having enough evidence to stop a person. During consent searches, officers simply ask for consent to search the person and/or their property. This seems rather just if the person has an understanding that they are allowed to deny the officer the privileges of searching; however, this is not the case for most people as they believe that one must comply with an officer’s request. Through the evolution of the 4th amendment within
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
One of the biggest reason stop-and-frisk should be abolished is in hopes to decrease such blatant racial profiling that has been going on under the name of “stop-and-frisk”. In 2007, 55% of the people stopped in New York were blacks and 30% were Hispanic (“Update: Crime and Race”). When checked again in 2011 a total of 685,000 people were stopped by the police of that 685,000, 52.9% were African Americans, 33.7% were Latino, and 9.3% were white (“Racial Profiling”). There is a story of an innocent victim of the stop-and-frisk policy, a man by the name of Robert Taylor. Police in Torrance stopped the elderly man and claimed he fit the description of a suspect that was linked to a robbery. But there was one simple problem; Taylor is a light complexioned, tall, 60 year-old man and the suspect was believed to be a short, dark complexioned, stocky man in his thirties; nothing like Taylor at all (Hutchinson). His shows that the police do not always stop people based on the right reasons, they tend to stop people based on the color of thei...
This essay will bring to light the problem of racial profiling in the police force and propose the eradication of any discrimination. The Fourth Amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.