History / Background
What Happened?
Majority
Dissenting
The 3 Questions /
In General
100
What scandal was President Clinton was involved in?
The Monica Lewinsky Scandal
100
What city did the crime take place in?
Chicago, Illinois.
100
Whom did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?
Illinois.
100
What is the Fourth Amendment?
The Fourth Amendment states that a person will not be searched without a warrant or probable cause.
100
One of the Three Questions: Was ________from the officers reasonably suspicious?
unprovoked flight
200
True or False: President Clinton was impeached.
True. Clinton was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate trial.
200
What was Wardlow carrying?
An opaque white bag. (To be more specific, a .38 caliber handgun in an opaque white bag.)
200
Did Supreme Court rule that being in a high crime area could be enough for reasonable suspicion?
No. This factor alone cannot contribute to reasonable suspicion.
200
Did the dissenting side support their argument by separating the pieces of evidence or by looking at them as a whole?
The dissenting side separated the pieces of evidence.
200
One of the Three Questions: Does being in a _______________ justify for probable cause?
high crime area
300
As discussed in the power point, what did the act that Congress pass in 1998 declare?
It declared that the United States wanted Saddam Hussein out of power and wanted to replace his government with a democracy.
300
What was the area where the crime took place known for?
Narcotics transactions.
300
Did Supreme Court rule that unprovoked flight could be enough for reasonable suspicion?
Although it contributes to it, this factor alone is not enough for reasonable suspicion.
300
How did the minority disagree with the majority? How did they form their argument?
The minority believed that each separate piece of evidence was not enough probable cause to search Wardlow.
300
One of the Three Questions: Did the protective pat-down violate ______________?
the Fourth Amendment
400
Around what percentage of police in the area were more prejudice towards blacks than any other race?
Seventy-two percent.
400
What did the Illinois Trial Court rule?
It ruled that police had the right to search Wardlow as it was a lawful stop and frisk.
400
Did the two officers violate the Fourth Amendment according to the majority?
According to the majority, no. There was enough probable cause to search Wardlow.
400
Why did the minority think the police violated the Fourth Amendment?
Yes. There was not enough probable cause to evidence.
400
What did Wardlow argue?
He argued that the police violated the 4th Amendment because they had no probable cause to search him.
500
As discussed in the power point, what did Osama Bin Laden do that got the attention of western powers?
He basically declared war on all Jews and Crusaders.
500
What did the State Appellate Court rule?
It ruled that the police did not have the right to give the defendant a pat down because there was no reasonable suspicion.
500
How did the majority differ in opinions with the dissenting side? How did they form their argument?
The majority believed that there was enough reasonable suspicion. The circumstances as a whole were enough to provide enough evidence to search Wardlow.
500
Was the scenario of the defendant fleeing based on actual evidence according to the dissenting side? Why?
No. Because this information was based entirely on Nolan's statement, it should not count as actual evidence.
500
Tie Breaker / Bonus: State the three questions. How did the Supreme Court answer the three questions? (Yes or No for each one.)
1 Was unprovoked flight from the officers reasonably suspicious? Yes. 2 Does being in a high crime area justify for probable cause? Not this factor alone. 3 Did the protective pat-down violate the Fourth Amendment? No.
M
e
n
u