Lesser Intrusions than Full Searches or Seizures (Stops, frisks, and protective sweeps)

Question 1

Florida v J.L.

Answer 1

Facts
On October 13, 1995, an anonymous caller informed the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a specific bus stop, identifiable by his plaid shirt, was carrying a gun. Without any audio recording of the tip or information about the informant, two officers were dispatched and arrived at the bus stop approximately six minutes later. There, they encountered three black males, including J.L., who matched the description provided by the caller. Without observing any illegal conduct or seeing a firearm, and with J.L. making no unusual movements, the officers proceeded to frisk him, finding and seizing a gun from his pocket. J.L., nearly 16 years old at the time, faced charges related to carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. He successfully moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds of an unlawful search, a decision initially reversed by an intermediate appellate court but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of Florida.

Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether an anonymous tip claiming a person is carrying a gun, without any additional evidence or corroboration, is sufficient to justify a police officer’s decision to stop and frisk that person under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that an anonymous tip lacking specific indicia of reliability does not, by itself, justify a stop and frisk. The decision affirmed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court, ruling that the search of J.L. was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 2

Terry v Ohio

Answer 2

Facts
In downtown Cleveland, Detective Martin McFadden observed two men, Terry and Chilton, exhibiting suspicious behavior that suggested they were planning a robbery. Over a period, McFadden watched them pace back and forth, look into a store window multiple times, and confer with each other and a third man. Believing they might be armed and planning a crime, McFadden approached them, identified himself as a police officer, and after a brief interaction, conducted a pat-down search. During the search, McFadden felt a gun in Terry’s coat and subsequently retrieved it. Terry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The trial court denied a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the search, leading to Terry’s conviction, which was upheld on appeal.

Issue
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the search and seizure of Terry, conducted by McFadden without a warrant and based on suspicion rather than probable cause, violated Terry’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the search and seizure were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It affirmed Terry’s conviction, establishing that police officers can perform a limited search (a “stop and frisk”) of a person for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the person is involved in criminal activity and poses a danger to the officer or others.

Question 3

illinois v Wardlow

Answer 3

Facts
On September 9, 1995, in a Chicago neighborhood known for heavy narcotics trafficking, uniformed police officers Nolan and Harvey, part of a special operations section, were patrolling in a four-car caravan. As they approached the area, they observed respondent William Wardlow standing next to a building with an opaque bag. Upon seeing the police, Wardlow fled, which led the officers to pursue and eventually corner him. Officer Nolan stopped Wardlow and conducted a protective pat-down search, suspecting the presence of weapons due to the nature of the area. During the search, Nolan felt a hard object in the bag Wardlow was carrying, which turned out to be a .38-caliber handgun with ammunition. Wardlow was arrested and charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. The trial court denied Wardlow’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, but both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop.

Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Wardlow based solely on his unprovoked flight upon noticing the police in a high crime area, thus making the stop and the subsequent search constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court, holding that the officers’ stop of Wardlow did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop based on Wardlow’s unprovoked flight in a high crime area.