AXNTA5MTY1/a/MjY3NzcyNjlyNDYz/details Facts of the Case: Wardlow v. Illinois Sam Wardlow, who was holding an opaque bag, inexplicably fled an area of Chicago known for heavy narcotics trafficking after noticing police officers in the area. When officers caught up with him on the street, one stopped him and conducted a protective pat-down search for weapons because in his experience there were usually weapons in the vicinity of narcotics transactions. The officers arrested Wardlow after discovering that he was carrying a handgun. In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to "specific reasonable inferences" as to why the stop was necessary. The Illinois trial court denied the motion, finding that the gun was recovered during a lawful stop and frisk. Wardlow was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. In a reversing decision, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to make the stop. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed this decision, determining that sudden flight in a high crime area does not create a reasonable suspicion in justifying a stop because flight may simply be an exercise of the right to "go on one's way." However, this case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court for further examination of these questions. This case went on to the Supreme Court of the U.S. to determine if a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from identifiable police officers who were patrolling a high crime area, is sufficiently suspicious to justify the officers' stop of that person. Please discuss the case with your group and answer the questions below. Questions for Wardlow v. Illinois: 2. What evidence existed for the officers to stop and frisk Wardlow? 3. Was there "reasonable suspicion"? 4. What evidence existed for probable cause and arrest? 5. Did the police violate the 4" Amendment when they stopped Wardlow