Illinois v. Wardlow
|Illinois v. Wardlow|
|Argued November 2, 1999|
Decided January 12, 2000
|Full case name||Illinois, Petitioner v. William aka Sam Wardlow|
|Citations||528 U.S. 119 (more)|
|Prior||183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N.E.2d 484 (1998)|
|The police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop because nervous, evasive behavior, like fleeing a high crime area upon noticing police officers, is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion to justify a stop|
|Majority||Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas|
|Dissent||Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer|
|U.S. Const. amend. IV|
Justice John Paul Stevens argued in dissent that the government did not articulate enough facts to establish reasonable suspicion and that there were not enough facts in the record to corroborate the government's claim.
- Johnson-Liu, M. E. (1999). "Running from the Law in the Wrong Part of Town: Illinois v. Wardlow". American Journal of Criminal Law. 27: 129. ISSN 0092-2315.
- Wang, Andrea (2001). "Illinois v. Wardlow and the Crisis of Legitimacy: An Argument for a 'Real Cost' Balancing Test". Law & Inequality. 19: 1. ISSN 0737-089X.