This case study analyzes the Illinois vs. Wardlow case, focusing on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The case revolves around the issue of reasonable suspicion and whether an officer's stop of Sam Wardlow, based on his flight from police in a high-crime area, violated his rights. The analysis examines the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the Supreme Court's decision, which held that the stop did not violate Wardlow's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court considered Wardlow's unprovoked flight and presence in a high-crime area as factors contributing to reasonable suspicion, justifying the stop. The report concludes by summarizing the key points of the case and its implications on the limits of citizens' ability to avoid police and not be stopped by them.
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
