High court ruling on running from cops comes under fire

Kim Smith And Cy Ryan

Friday, Jan. 14, 2000 | 10:24 a.m.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Wednesday is raising the eyebrows of some Las Vegas defense attorneys, but prosecutors in the state attorney general's office warned that too much should not be read into the high court's decision.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Chicago police officers acted appropriately when they ran after a man who saw their caravan of police vehicles and fled.

The man, William Wardlow, had a gun and went to trial on a felony weapons offense. The Illinois judge who heard the case ruled that the officers found the gun during a lawful stop and frisk, and refused to throw out the case.

Wardlow's conviction was overturned when the appellate court decided the officers hadn't met the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion" needed to make the stop. Illinois prosecutors went before the U.S. Supreme Court when the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the decision to overturn the conviction.

Reasonable suspicion is an easier legal standard to meet than probable cause.

In writing the decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that "nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. Headlong flight -- wherever it occurs -- is the consummate act of evasion."

Rehnquist and the other judges who sided with him stopped short of saying that police officers can stop anyone who spots them and runs. They ruled there must be other circumstances that lead them to believe something suspicious is going on. In the Wardlow case, he was seen running in an area known for drug trafficking.

The four judges who offered a dissenting opinion said that while they agree there shouldn't be a blanket law granting officers the right to chase anyone who runs from them, they don't believe the officers were justified in stopping Wardlow.

The court's decision appears to address "limited circumstances under which the flight occurs," David Sarnowski, chief deputy attorney general in charge of the criminal division, said. "You should not read more into it than is there."

He said defense lawyers will argue that this ruling applies only in limited cases.

Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa joined with 16 other states in a friend of the court brief in the case supporting Illinois' position.

The states' brief noted that if a person flees at the sight of law enforcement, it "destroys any meaningful power of the police to exercise their own reasonable prerogative to ask for an explanation of the circumstances for flight."

"There is nothing unreasonable about stopping a person who runs from the police, especially in a neighborhood known for its criminal activities," the brief said. It added that a person can still decline to cooperate after being stopped and an inquiry by police has been made.

Las Vegas-based U.S. Public Defender Franny Forsman said she agrees with the dissenting justices.

Just because someone runs from police and happens to live in a poor neighborhood doesn't justify a chase on the part of the police, Forsman said.

Stories of police abuse and trumped up charges have become commonplace over the past year, with many of the incidents happening repeatedly in the same economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, Forsman said.

"From Los Angeles to New York we are seeing good reasons people have run from police that are not connected to criminal activity," Forsman said.

Forsman said she sees Wednesday's decision as further erosion of the Fourth Amendment.

Police officers' actions nowadays are "kind of Third Worldish," Forsman said. "When they can start asking you 'Where are you going? What are you doing? Where are your papers?' it harkens me back to South Africa and Third World countries, when traditionally America has condemned those actions."

Officer Laz Chavez, a Metro Police spokesman, said officers from his department will continue to follow departmental policy until the Supreme Court decision is studied more closely. At this time, Chavez said, officers must feel they have "reasonable suspicion" that a criminal activity is taking place before stopping running subjects.

Calls to North Las Vegas and Henderson police were not returned.

Bob Larsen, Clark County assistant public defender, said he doubts law enforcement officers will use the decision to justify random stops, but he will be watching them closely.

"It's obviously a good tool for law enforcement, but with the latitude they've been given it could be susceptible to abuses," Larsen said. "We'll have to see how it plays out."