Citations 528 U.S. 119 (more) | End date 2000 | |
 | ||
Full case name Illinois, Petitioner v. William aka Sam Wardlow Prior history 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N. E. 2d 484 Majority Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Similar Terry v Ohio, Knowles v Iowa, California v Greenwood, Florida v Bostick, California v Acevedo | ||
Gov project illinois v wardlow
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), is a case decided before the United States Supreme Court involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures.
Contents
Illinois v wardlow
Holding
In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
Dissent
Justice John Paul Stevens argued in dissent that the government did not articulate enough facts to establish reasonable suspicion and that there were not enough facts in the record to corroborate the government's claim.
References
Illinois v. Wardlow Wikipedia(Text) CC BY-SA