Running Into Trouble
On September 9, 1995 officers Harvey and Nolan were working with the special operations section of the Chicago police department. They were in uniform. Were they in a marked patrol car? Don't know.
They entered an area where heavy drug trafficking was frequent - and a well-known fact.
As the officers passed West Van Buren street, they saw Mr. Wardlaw standing next to a building. He was holding an opaque bag.
I don't know what, if anything, was in the bag; but Mr. Wardlaw saw officers Harvey and Nolan, then hit the street running.
Why did Mr. Wardlaw run? Maybe he was late for an appointment, for dinner or for the bus stop.
Perhaps he was running to a friends house and he had to get there before the friend left.
Maybe seeing the police reminded him that his always-in-trouble-with-the-law friend had an outstanding warrant. Maybe Mr. Wardlaw had one (an outstanding warrant) himself.
Or just maybe Mr. Wardlaw knew that if the officers approached him and patted him down for weapons, they would find a handgun. And they did - a .38 caliber with fifteen live rounds of ammo.
Mr. Wardlaw was arrested (after they finally caught and cornered him).
When Mr. Wardlaw got to trial court, he filed a motion to suppress the gun. The court said no, don't think so.
They said no because the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. They said.
Mr. Wardlaw had a bench trial (a trial before a judge, without a jury), and was found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (guess he had some previous problems too).
On appeal (Illinois appellate court) Mr. Wardlaw found allies. That court said that the weapon should have been suppressed because officer Nolan didn't have reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio.
Ok.Terry tells us that an officer who conducts a brief, investigatoary stop when he has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, is acting consistently with the Fourth Amendment.
The highest Illinois court said "right on" to the appellate court's view.
Yes, they opined; an officer has a right to approach someone and ask questions. But that individual doesn't have to answer.
He can ignore Mr. Officer and be on his merry way.
And even better yet, for those who don't feel the need to converse with the law, a refusal does not equal a legitimate basis for an investigatory stop.
So that means that in this case, Mr. Wardlaw may have simply been exercising his right to walk away (ok, run away) and do something else - rather than talk to Chicago police department.
Latest Articles