People v. Wardlow

Decision Date18 March 1997
Docket NumberNo. 1-96-0094,1-96-0094
Citation678 N.E.2d 65,287 Ill.App.3d 367
Parties, 222 Ill.Dec. 658 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sam WARDLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Rita A. Fry, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago (Eileen T. Pahl, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.

Jack O'Malley, State's Attorney, County of Cook, Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Veronica X. Calderon, of counsel), * for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Justice DiVITO delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a bench trial, defendant Sam Wardlow was found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the circuit court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun that was seized from him during an investigatory stop. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted and we reverse his conviction.

At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, Officer Timothy Nolan testified that on September 9, 1995, he and his partner, Officer Harvey, were assigned to the special operations section of the Chicago police department. They were among eight officers in four cars who were driving eastbound on West Van Buren. Officer Nolan's car was last in the line of vehicles driving in the area. Although Officer Nolan could not recall whether his car was marked, he and his partner were in uniform. There was no evidence concerning whether any of the other cars were marked or concerning the clothing of the other officers.

The cars were "caravaning" eastbound down Van Buren, when Officer Nolan observed defendant, who was not violating any laws, standing near the front of 4035 West Van Buren Street. Defendant looked in the officers' direction, then fled. Holding a white bag under his arm, he ran through a gangway and then through an alley. Officer Nolan drove south, observing defendant as he ran. Near 4036 West Congress, defendant ran towards him.

Officer Nolan exited his car and stopped defendant. Without announcing his office or asking any questions, he conducted a protective pat-down search of defendant. He could not see inside the plastic bag that defendant was carrying. He patted the outside of the bag and "felt a hard object that had a similar shape to a revolver or a gun." Officer Nolan believed the object, which was very heavy, to be a weapon. He looked inside the bag and found a .38-caliber handgun containing five live rounds of ammunition. He then placed defendant under arrest.

Officer Nolan testified that he and the other officers had gone to the area because it was "one of the areas in the 11th District that's high narcotics traffic." Based upon his experience with investigation of areas in which narcotics are sold, Officer Nolan knew that it was common to find weapons in the vicinity of such areas.

The police report indicated that defendant, who was 44 years old, was arrested at 12:15 p.m.

The circuit court denied the motion to suppress. A stipulated bench trial followed, and defendant was found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and was sentenced to a two-year term of imprisonment.

In this appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his presence in a high crime area and flight from the police officers were insufficient to justify his investigatory stop. We note that although no Illinois court has considered whether sudden flight from police officers in a high crime area justifies a stop, other jurisdictions are divided on the question. Compare Harris v. State, 205 Ga.App. 813, 423 S.E.2d 723 (1992), and State v. White, 660 So.2d 515 (La.Ct.App.1995)(flight from police officers in high crime area justifies investigatory stop), with People v Holmes, 81 N.Y.2d 1056, 619 N.E.2d 396, 601 N.Y.S.2d 459 (1993), Hopkins v. State, 661 So.2d 774 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), Britt v. State, 673 So.2d 934 (Fla.App.1996), and State v. Hicks, 241 Neb. 357, 488 N.W.2d 359 (1992) (flight from police officers in high crime area does not justify stop).

Where, as here, there is no challenge to the facts or the credibility of the witnesses, we review a motion to suppress de novo. People v. Foskey, 136 Ill.2d 66, 76, 143 Ill.Dec. 257, 554 N.E.2d 192 (1990); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. ----, ----, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 920 (1996).

Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (codified at 725 ILCS 5/107-14 (West 1994)), a police officer may stop and detain a person for temporary questioning if the officer reasonably infers from the situation that the person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime. Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d at 906-07. To justify an investigatory stop, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts that reasonably warrant the intrusion. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d at 906. In determining whether a stop is reasonable, the court employs an objective standard: would an officer of reasonable caution, knowing the facts available at the time of the stop, believe the action was appropriate? People v. Rivera, 272 Ill.App.3d 502, 504-05, 209 Ill.Dec. 111, 650 N.E.2d 1084 (1995), appeal denied, 164 Ill.2d 577, 214 Ill.Dec. 328, 660 N.E.2d 1277 (1995).

In Illinois, neither a person's mere presence in an area where drugs are sold (People v. Harper, 237 Ill.App.3d 202, 205, 177 Ill.Dec. 334, 603 N.E.2d 115 (1992)) nor sudden flight (People v. Rivera, 233 Ill.App.3d 69, 77, 174 Ill.Dec. 226, 598 N.E.2d 423 (1992)) alone will justify a Terry stop. Past criminal activity in an area (People v. Hunt, 188 Ill.App.3d 359, 362, 135 Ill.Dec. 761, 544 N.E.2d 118 (1989), appeal denied, 128 Ill.2d 668, 139 Ill.Dec. 518, 548 N.E.2d 1074 (1989)) and flight (Rivera, 233 Ill.App.3d at 77, 174 Ill.Dec. 226, 598 N.E.2d 423), however, are relevant factors to be considered in determining whether circumstances justify an investigatory stop.

For example, in People v. Rivera, 233 Ill.App.3d 69, 76-77, 174 Ill.Dec. 226, 598 N.E.2d 423 (1992), police officers entered the defendant's bar, having received information that cocaine was stored in the basement and the defendant was involved in its sale and distribution. According to the testimony of the police officers, the defendant appeared frightened and fled when they entered the bar. Rivera, 233 Ill.App.3d at 77, 174 Ill.Dec. 226, 598 N.E.2d 423. The court found that the flight of the defendant, combined with the information known to the officers, provided the requisite reasonable suspicion. Rivera, 233 Ill.App.3d at 77, 174 Ill.Dec. 226, 598 N.E.2d 423.

From the record before us, we cannot discern the precise location of the area known by the officers to have a high incidence of narcotics trafficking. After he testified that he noticed defendant at 4035 West Van Buren, Officer Nolan was asked why he went to that area. He responded that it was one of the areas in the 11th District that had "high narcotics traffic." His testimony indicates only that the officers were headed somewhere in the general area. There was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Sizer, 0784, Sept. Term, 2016
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 29 Noviembre 2016
    ...the conviction, holding that Officer Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop. People v. Wardlow, 287 Ill.App.3d 367, 678 N.E.2d 65, 222 Ill.Dec. 658 (1997). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. People v. Wardlow, 183 Ill.2d 306, 701 N.E.2d 484, 233 Ill.Dec. 634 (1998......
  • People v. Timmsen
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25 Julio 2014
    ...The United States Supreme Court has previously corrected an Illinois court for similar thinking.¶ 34 In People v. Wardlow, 287 Ill.App.3d 367, 222 Ill.Dec. 658, 678 N.E.2d 65 (1997), a Chicago police officer was driving a police car while in full uniform and observed defendant “who was not ......
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 26 Octubre 2012
    ...to this area because it was " ‘one of the areas in the 11th District that's high narcotics traffic.’ " People v. Wardlow, 287 Ill.App.3d 367, 369, 222 Ill.Dec. 658, 678 N.E.2d 65 (1997). The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress and defendant was subsequently convicted. Wardlow,......
  • People v. Wardlow
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 24 Septiembre 1998
    ...have been granted because the revolver seized from him was discovered as a result of an improper investigatory stop. 287 Ill.App.3d 367, 222 Ill.Dec. 658, 678 N.E.2d 65. We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal. 166 Ill.2d R. 315(a); 145 Ill.2d R. 604(a)(2). At the hearing on def......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Whitewashing the Fourth Amendment
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 111-5, May 2023
    • 1 Mayo 2023
    ...Wardlow, 701 N.E.2d 484, 486 (Ill. 1998). 144. Id. 145. See id. at 489. 146. Id. at 487 (citations omitted) (quoting People v. Wardlow, 678 N.E.2d 65, 67 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)). 2023] WHITEWASHING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT 943 enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the pers......
  • Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Predictive Policing and Reasonable Suspicion
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 62-2, 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...at 137 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).Id. at 122 (majority opinion).251 Id. at 124–25.People v. Wardlow, 678 N.E.2d 65, 67 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (“[Officer Nolan’s] testimony indicates only that the officers were headed somewhere in the general area. There was no ev......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT