Terry V. Ohio Case Analysis

Is a person's sudden flight from identifiable police officer, patrolling a high crime area, suspicious to justify the officer's stop and frisk of that person? This was the question that the justices of the Supreme Court were asking themselves when they heard the case of Illinois v. Wardlow on the date of November 2, 1999. A few things happened in the U.S. government in 1999. In January, Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial began. Clinton would later be acquitted in February. In March, the Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions of Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing. The case would become important because it expanded the ruling of a police stop and frisk. This means that the case set a new precedent. The new precedent changed the original precedent that was set during the Terry v. Ohio case. The facts of the case are as
The effect of the change is that officers have to decide what defines a “high crime area”. A “high crime area” could be described as, like in this case, a heavy narcotics trafficking area. The police are the most impacted by the decision because like I said before, officers have to decide what defines a “high crime area”. The case had changed the precedent that was set in the Terry v. Ohio case. There have been no cases since 2000 that changed or revisited the precedent set in Illinois v. Wardlow. I think there should be a case now that revisits the precedent. The reason I think this is because of the recent terrorist attacks committed by supporters of ISIS in the U.S. There have reportedly been about 60 attacks worldwide committed by ISIS and supporters of ISIS. Four of those attacks have been in the U.S. That means that 1/15 of ISIS’ attacks have been in the U.S. More could be coming, so police officers should be extra careful when they see suspicious