HIGH COURT TO DECIDE IF FLEEING FROM POLICE GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if the
Constitution permits police patrolling in high-crime neighborhoods to stop
and frisk people solely because they run upon seeing the officers.

The case, from a crime-infested area of Chicago, pits the interests of law
enforcement against the Fourth Amendment right of people to be free from
unreasonable searches. The Illinois Supreme Court, in a ruling against the
police, said suspect Sam Wardlow's decision to scamper from Chicago
officers did not give them sufficient reason to suspect him of having
committed a crime or to frisk him, a controversial body search that
uncovered a firearm.

Illinois Attorney General James Ryan successfully urged the U.S. Supreme
Court to review the Illinois high court's decision, which had overturned
Wardlow's gun-possession conviction. Ryan, defending the controversial
chase and search of Wardlow, told the justices that police in dangerous
neighborhoods nationwide would be hamstrung in their ability to fight crime
if they were prohibited from chasing people who bolt at the sight of officers.

But Rita Fry, the chief Cook County, Ill., public defender representing
Wardlow, countered that the rights of innocent people would be jeopardized
if police were allowed to search them simply because they ran away. But the
justices rejected Fry's request that they simply let the Illinois Supreme
Court's decision stand.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear the case, Illinois vs. Wardlow,
later this year or in early 2000 and to render their decision by July 2000.

The case arose four years ago when Chicago police officer Timothy Nolan and
seven of his colleagues were patrolling an area of the city known for
narcotics traffic. Wardlow saw the officers and took off running.

Nolan gave chase in his car, catching up with Wardlow after several blocks.
When Nolan approached the suspect and patted him down to ensure Wardlow was
not armed, the officer found a loaded Colt. .38 caliber handgun and
arrested him.

At trial, Wardlow argued that Nolan's search was unreasonable because the
officer had no right to suspect him of a crime just because he ran away.
But the trial judge rejected that argument, ruling that "there's reasons to
think there's a problem" when somebody runs upon seeing a police officer.

Wardlow was found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and was
sentenced to two years in prison.

But the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that Nolan
had no right to suspect Wardlow of committing a crime simply because he ran.

Ryan, the state attorney general, told the U.S. Supreme Court that the
Illinois decision should not stand and police should be allowed to reach
the obvious conclusion that a person fleeing them probably did something
illegal . "This (Illinois ruling) puts the officers in the unenviable
position of having to shrug their shoulders and helplessly stand watching
while such persons escape," Ryan wrote in his legal brief successfully
urging the court to hear the state's appeal.

But Fry, the pubic defender, praised the Illinois Supreme Court for
protecting the rights of innocent people in high-crime neighborhoods.

"Because both flight and presence in a high-crime area are consistent with
innocent behavior, the Illinois Supreme Court properly found that
additional suspicious circumstances were required to justify officer
Nolan's stop of Wardlow," Fry wrote in her unsuccessful brief to the justices.