I think Illinois was right because Wardlow took off running when he saw the cops. If he wouldn't have ran, the cops wouldn't have stopped him and looked through his bag.
i think that illinois was in the right because it is suspicious running from the cops without them even stoping and talking to him, he was a convicted felon carrying a fire arm.
Illinois is right because if a guy runs from the police there going to think something is up and go after him and then they would have a right to search him
I think that the police did not have the right to search him but I think that they could detain him for suspicion and maybe find out who he is first. Wardlow could've been a better criminal by acting normal and keep walking instead of run away
I think Illinois was right to search him because it is obvious in the area of high drug trafficking and that he started running when he saw the cops. He was a convicted felon. That had every right to search him.
I would side with Illinois only because he ran from the cops. This gave the cops reason to think that he was hiding something. If he never would have ran, I don't think that he would be in this situation.
I think that the Illinois side is right because if he never would have taken off running right when he saw the cops, they wouldn't have gone after him.
I would be on Illinois side because the guy ran so they had reasonable suspicion to search him. He was carrying a weapon and was a felon so he is guilty... end of story!!!
I agree with Illinois. The cops were suspicious when Wardlow started to take off running, if he wouldn't have ran then the cops wouldn't have ran after him and looked in his bag.
Personally, I am pushed more for the side of Illinois. I mean, yes there are personal rights that protect us from being searched unreasonably, but there are limitations. Wardlow gave the cops reasonable suspicion to seize and search. He was caring a white bag in a highly drug populated area, and took off running the moment he noticed the cops. If he had just continued on his way, acting like nothing was wrong, I'm sure that the police wouldn't have given him a second look. -Tara Lynn
Illinois is right I think. If someone seen the cops and started running the other way than the cops think that you are up to something. So they would stop you and search you. And since he is a convicted felon he can not be carrying a weapon.
I think Illinois was right because Wardlow took off running when he saw the cops. If he wouldn't have ran, the cops wouldn't have stopped him and looked through his bag.
ReplyDeleteI would take Illinois side because wardlow is guilty because he is a convicted felon carrying a gun and that is illegal.
ReplyDeletei think that illinois was in the right because it is suspicious running from the cops without them even stoping and talking to him, he was a convicted felon carrying a fire arm.
ReplyDeleteIllinois was right. They had reasonable suspicion to search him and he had a gun as a felon.
ReplyDeleteIllinios is right because Wardlow took off running when he saw the police
ReplyDeleteIllinois is right because if a guy runs from the police there going to think something is up and go after him and then they would have a right to search him
ReplyDeleteI think that the police did not have the right to search him but I think that they could detain him for suspicion and maybe find out who he is first. Wardlow could've been a better criminal by acting normal and keep walking instead of run away
ReplyDeleteI think Illinois was right to search him because it is obvious in the area of high drug trafficking and that he started running when he saw the cops. He was a convicted felon. That had every right to search him.
ReplyDeleteI would side with Illinois only because he ran from the cops. This gave the cops reason to think that he was hiding something. If he never would have ran, I don't think that he would be in this situation.
ReplyDeleteIllinois was right. They had suspicion because he ran and he shouldn't be carrying a gun if he's a felon.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Illinois side is right because if he never would have taken off running right when he saw the cops, they wouldn't have gone after him.
ReplyDeleteI would be on Illinois side because the guy ran so they had reasonable suspicion to search him. He was carrying a weapon and was a felon so he is guilty... end of story!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Illinois. The cops were suspicious when Wardlow started to take off running, if he wouldn't have ran then the cops wouldn't have ran after him and looked in his bag.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am pushed more for the side of Illinois. I mean, yes there are personal rights that protect us from being searched unreasonably, but there are limitations. Wardlow gave the cops reasonable suspicion to seize and search. He was caring a white bag in a highly drug populated area, and took off running the moment he noticed the cops. If he had just continued on his way, acting like nothing was wrong, I'm sure that the police wouldn't have given him a second look.
ReplyDelete-Tara Lynn
Illinois is right I think. If someone seen the cops and started running the other way than the cops think that you are up to something. So they would stop you and search you. And since he is a convicted felon he can not be carrying a weapon.
ReplyDelete