In Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that ...

[casperchen82]

In Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate to further determine if criminal activity is about to take place. What remains unclear about the Wardlow rule? Do you agree or disagree with the majority in Wardlow? Explain your position.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Explain why the Fourth Amendment applies to stops and frisks. What are the proper purposes of each procedure? Give an example to support your answer.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[frre432]

Answer to Question 1

Two issues remain unclear about the Wardlow rule: (1) what is a high-crime area,
and (2) how do you determine that flight from police officers is unprovoked? I agree
with the majority because it allows police officers to use their training and
experience in determining how to respond to unusual activity.

Answer to Question 2

The Fourth Amendment applies to stops and frisks because they are forms of
searches and seizures. The proper purpose for stops is for an officer to ask
questions. The proper purpose for frisks is to pat-down for weapons to protect the
officer and others. An example of a stop is when an officer approaches a group of
people on the street outside a jewelry store and asks what they are doing. An
example of a frisk is when the group of three is wearing long coats while the
weather is in the 90 degree range, and they keep their right hands in the pockets of
the coats, even when the officer offers to shake hands. He then frisks them for
weapons.

[casperchen82]

TY

[frre432]

You're welcome