This question is best answered by an examination of Illinois v. Wardlow. In the presence of a place marked for narcotics trafficking, Wardlow decided to flee upon spotting four police cars. He was apprehended and presented before a Supreme Court. However, the Court stated that headlong flight does not serve as evidence of wrongdoing even though it is indicative of such. On the other hand, law enforcement officers have to justify a stop in the vent of unprovoked flight because it is suggestive of wrongdoing. However, standing alone in a high crime environment does not raise sufficient grounds for suspicion. It is therefore legally correct to interpret that unprovoked flight when one is near law enforcement officers in the presence of a high crime area equals reasonable suspicion. There is a need to justify reasonable grounds in engagement in criminal activity at the time of flight to warrant apprehension.
- Successful Ways of Preventing Crime by Blundell
- Different Perspectives of Viewing Crime
- Mechanisms to Fight Serious Forms of Organized Crime in Italy
- Aspects of Crime Behavior
- Reporting Behavior Among Victims of Crime
- The Rates of Crimes in America
- Uniform Crime Reporting: Indicator of Crime in the US