Page 50 - March April 2020 TPA

In short, while reasonable suspicion is not a Darrell, Wardlow filed an unsuccessful motion to
“finely-tuned standard[],” it is well established suppress and was ultimately convicted of being a
that “the Fourth Amendment requires at least a felon in possession of a firearm.
minimal level of objective justification for making” The Supreme Court held 5–4 that the officers had
an investigatory stop. reasonable, articulable suspicion that Wardlow was
The parties agree that Darrell was “seized,” for engaged in criminal activity. The majority relied on
purposes of the Fourth Amendment, when he two salient facts to support its conclusion: (1) the
complied with Officer Billingsley’s second stop took place in a high-crime area, and (2)
command to stop. Wardlow took off in an “unprovoked flight” as
The question is whether the officers had soon as he saw the approaching police cars.27 The
reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop him based majority acknowledged that “[a]n individual’s
on what they had observed up until that moment. presence in an area of expected criminal activity,
The Government cites three key facts to support the standing alone, is not enough to support a
stop. First, “Darrell exited his vehicle and reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person
attempted to flee the very moment officers pulled in is committing a crime.”28 Neither, however, is an
behind him.” Second, Darrell appeared to be officer “required to ignore the relevant
heading toward the back of the house, where he characteristics of a location in determining whether
could potentially “draw a gun or warn the the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to
occupants of the house.” Finally, the location of the warrant further investigation.” Likewise, although
encounter—“a known drug house, where officers flight from officers “is not necessarily indicative of
had made arrests and knew that a shooting had wrongdoing, . . . it is certainly suggestive of such”
occurred”— put the officers on alert for dangerous and is properly accorded substantial weight in the
or illegal activity. In short, “Darrell was told to stop Terry analysis. The Court held that, in
. . . because he walked away from officers, combination, these two factors supported the
attempting to leave their field of vision, as soon as officers’ “determination of reasonable suspicion . .
officers arrived at a known drug house to make an . based on commonsense judgments and inferences
arrest.” Darrell counters that his behavior was about human behavior.”
innocent and that the officers had nothing but a The Court was careful to distinguish Wardlow from
“mere hunch,” not reasonable suspicion of criminal earlier cases in which it had recognized that
activity. “refusal to cooperate, without more,” does not
The Government relies almost exclusively on the create reasonable suspicion. While an “individual
Supreme Court’s opinion in Illinois v. Wardlow, so has a right to ignore the police and go about his
a detailed consideration of Wardlow must be the business,” the Wardlow Court explained,
starting point of our analysis. In Wardlow, two [f]light, by its very nature, is not “going about one’s
uniformed Chicago police officers “were driving business”; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing
the last car of a four car caravan converging on an officers confronted with such flight to stop the
area known for heavy narcotics trafficking in order fugitive and investigate further is quite consistent
to investigate drug transactions.” One of the with the individual’s right to go about his business
officers noticed Wardlow standing next to a or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police
building “holding an opaque bag.” questioning.
Wardlow “looked in the direction of the officers The four Wardlow dissenters had no quarrel with
and fled” down an alley before being cornered by the majority’s legal framework; indeed, they
the police cruiser. An officer patted Wardlow commended the majority for refusing to adopt a
down and discovered a loaded handgun. Like “bright-line rule” either categorically authorizing

March/April 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 43