Thursday, 13 January 2000
http://www.azstarnet.com/public/dnews/LA0760.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court yesterday gave police broad
authority to stop and question people who run at the sight of
an officer.
The 5-4 ruling came short of giving police a blanket right to
stop anyone who runs after seeing the police. But it said such
flight may indicate a crime is being committed and therefore can
help justify a police stop.
The decision was a boost for police but worried some civil libertarians.
``Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining
reasonable suspicion'' to justify a stop, Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist wrote for the court. ``Headlong flight - wherever
it occurs - is the consummate act of evasion.
``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,'' Rehnquist said.
The court said police had enough reason to stop a Chicago man
who ran after spotting officers in an area known for narcotics
trafficking.
The National Association of Police Organizations praised the ruling.
The group's executive director, Robert T. Scully, said the decision
will allow police to investigate ``highly suspicious conduct.''
But 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.''
``One of the basic liberties of this country is that you've got
a right to say `no' to the cops,'' Maclin said, adding that the
ruling's practical effect will be to allow police to stop anyone
who flees in high-crime areas.
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 William Wardlow in 1995.
Wardlow was convicted of a weapons violation after he was chased
down and arrested on a Chicago street while carrying a loaded
handgun.
Eight officers in four cars had converged on an area known for
drug trafficking when Wardlow saw them and took off running. Officers
pursued and cornered him, and found the gun after a pat-down search.
Wardlow was sentenced to two years in prison for unlawful use
of a weapon, but a state appeals court threw out his conviction
and the Illinois Supreme Court agreed.
Stevens said prosecutors did not show that police had enough reason
to stop Wardlow.
``I am not persuaded that the mere fact that someone standing
on a sidewalk looked in the direction of a passing car before
starting to run is sufficient to justify a forcible stop and frisk,''
he said.
The Constitution's Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable searches
and seizures. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------