Educate-Yourself - Alt Healing Info, NWO, Earth Changes, Free Energy

January 12, 2000
Web posted at: 11:47 p.m. EST (0447 GMT)
http://cnn.com/2000/US/01/12/scotus.policestops.02/index.html

                  WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
                  ruled that a person fleeing from police merely at the sight of them can create
                  enough suspicion for police to stop and search that person.

The reasonable search decision was based on a Chicago case where Samuel
Wardlow fled as a caravan of police cars entered a high-crime area.

                  Police caught up with Wardlow on the next block. During a pat-down
                  search, they found a loaded .38- caliber pistol and five rounds of ammunition
                  in a plastic bag he was carrying.

                  Wardlow was sentenced to two years in prison
                  for unlawful use of a weapon. His lawyers
                  appealed, arguing that the search violated the
                  Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on
                  unreasonable searches and seizures.

                  "There was no other factor that would indicate
                  that a crime was afoot," said attorney Lynn
                  Weisberg. "The only thing that Mr. Wardlow
                  did was that he ran."

                  A state appeals court threw out Wardlow's conviction, and the Illinois
                  Supreme Court agreed. But by a slim majority, the nation's highest court
                  disagreed.

                  "Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable
                  suspicion" to justify a stop, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the
                  court. "Headlong flight -- wherever it occurs -- is the consummate act of
                  evasion."

                  Rehnquist added, "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."

He also wrote, "A high crime area (is) among the relevant contextual
considerations."

                  The ruling stopped short of giving police a blanket right to stop anyone who
                  runs after seeing the police. "Reasonable suspicion determination must be
                  based on common sense judgments and inferences about human behavior,"
                  the court said.

                  The decision drew praise from the National Association of Police
                  Organizations, which said it would allow police to investigate "highly
                  suspicious conduct" and that "effective law enforcement requires no less."

                  "The Supreme Court has said you balance the right of an individual -- to an
                  individual's right of privacy - - with the right of society for effective law
                  enforcement," said Stephen McSpadden of NAPO, which represents more
                  than 4,000 police unions and associations -- including 250,000 officers.

                  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."

                  Maclin said, "One of the basic liberties of this country is that you've got a
                  right to say 'no' to the cops," adding that the ruling's practical effect will be to
                  allow police to stop anyone who flees in high- crime areas.

                  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.

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 Wardlow in 1995.

Senior Washington correspondent Charles Bierbauer, The Associated Press and
Reuters contributed to this report.