Opinion ID: 1786569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Unconstitutionality of the Stop

Text: The facts of the case before us are not analogous to the facts of Wardlow. James did not go on headlong flight. He simply proceeded on his way in his van. The record contains no evidence that he drove hastily, erratically, or nervously. Moreover, James's driving away cannot be deemed unprovoked or unusual. The people to whom he had been talking were gone. The more unusual conduct would have been to continue sitting in a parked van. Had Officer Gill chosen to pursue the subjects who ran, the Wardlow rule might be applicable. It is not, however, applicable to James's case. Just as in Gaskin and Childs, the officer in the case now before us did not articulate any specific facts that would create a reasonable suspicion that James was involved in criminal activity. The officer testified that he could not determine what James or the subjects were doing. He did not testify that he saw the parties exchange anything. Thus, the officer's stop of James was not legally justified, and the evidence seized during the search of James should have been suppressed.