Illinois+v.+Wardlow

4th Amendment

Background of case: Sam Wardlow unknowingly fled an area of Chicago, known for heavy drug trafficking, with an opaque bag after noticing the presence of police. Officers chased him down and was eventually stopped and patted down for weapons to secure the officers safety, or otherwise known as a Stop and Frisk. Wardlow was immediately arrested after police found a handgun in his possession. During the trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed the police had to have an initial reason for stopping him, other than him looking suspicious. The trial court denied the motion because the gun was retrieved during a lawful stop and Wardlow was convicted with a lawful use of a weapon by a felon. After a revision, the Illinois Appellate Court realized the police officer had no inferences regarding the suspicion to arrange the stop. The Illinois Supreme Court confirmed the Appellate Court's decision in the ruling.

Majority opinion: The opinion of the Court ruled 5:4 and was presented to the Court by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquistvoted. The majority vote's opinion stated that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment in the stopping of Sam Wardlow because the officer had reasonable belief that he was involved in criminal activity.  Dissenting opinion: The other remaining votes went towards the dissenting opinion and was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. Their argument was that the government did not give clear enough facts for reasonable belief and the records did not back up the government's claim.

