Chicago, October, 1999: The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois announced today that it filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in a pending case, Illinois v. Wardlow, that will significantly impact on the power of police to randomly stop and search people. The ACLU brief, written and filed in conjunction with the ACLU National Office and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), convincingly argues that an individual has an “affirmative right to avoid contact with the police” without being subjected to interference by the police. The U. S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case during its forthcoming term, set to begin on November 2, 1999.



The case grows out of the arrest of Chicago resident, William Wardlow, at midday on September 9, 1995. Mr. Wardlow was standing in front of a building on West Van Buren street when a Chicago Police Department vehicle drove past. An officer in the cruiser later conceded in sworn testimony that Mr. Wardlow was not acting suspiciously, and was not engaged in any illegal activity. Seeing the police car, Mr. Wardlow rapidly left the scene on foot, and was followed by police who ultimately detained and frisked him. That search revealed that Mr. Wardlow was carrying a loaded handgun, and he was arrested and charged with various weapons violations.



A Cook County trial court judge ruled that Mr. Wardlow’s flight from the police justified the action of stopping and frisking him. An Illinois Appeals Court reversed that ruling holding that the act of flight alone did not furnish reasonable suspicion for the police action. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court ruling that even in a high crime neighborhood, avoiding police does not justify a stop.



“The appeals court and the state supreme court have struck the appropriate balance between the role of the police and the rights of the individual,” according to Harvey Grossman, Legal Director for the ACLU of Illinois. “Without any real evidence of criminal activity, individuals in our society have a legitimate right to move about on the streets without interference or intervention by the police. Such movement must not be limited simply because of arbitrary factors, like location, or because that movement takes one away from the police.”



The ACLU brief cites numerous Supreme Court and lower court rulings in support of its central argument, that absent objective evidence of criminality, individuals have an affirmative right to avoid conduct with the police. The brief also points out that the fundamental right to avoid the police cannot be altered simply because of the manner one employs to avoid the police. In particular, the ACLU notes that running away from the police does not create the necessary reasonable suspicion for the police to stop or search an individual.



The ACLU also rebuts the state’s argument that the police were justified because Mr. Wardlow was stopped and searched in an area know as a high crime locale. The ACLU points out that this factor – the location of the interaction between the police and the public – is not material to the right to avoid police contacts. The brief further asserts that the only criterion for stopping and searching an individual is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or will occur – no other factor, including avoiding police in a particular location, is part of that criteria.



“This case is critical, for it goes to the heart of the relationship between the police and the public,” according to Steve Shapiro, National Legal Director for the ACLU. “If the police can limit the movement of an individual without any objective reasonable suspicion of criminality, the balance of power is shifted in favor of the police, away from individual rights. If simply avoiding the police, looking away from a police officer, or walking into a store when a cruiser rolls by, becomes a pretext for stopping and searching an individual, then everyone may be under suspicion at any time.”