g weapons. This case is only distinguishable from Ms. Jones’ case with respect to the location of the narcotics on the passenger and the narcotics on Ms. Jones. Therefore, Wilson establishes the basic investigative posture that Officer Smith would have been allowed to take in respect to the client, upon pulling her car over. Once Officer Smith pulled over Ms. Jones’ car, he had the right to order her out and visually inspect her for concealed weapons.By fleeing from the initial stop, Ms. Jones raised the level of intrusiveness that Officer Smith was allowed to use in his investigation of her. In the case of Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), the Supreme Court held that when police are confronted with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, they may make an investigative stop on the person and temporally detain the suspect in order to resolve any ambiguities in the suspect’s actions. In determining reasonable suspicion, the police may consider all aspects of the situation. Additionally, the court held that such a stop may contain a protective pat down for weapons. Furthermore, the court held that police must limit their search to the person and immediate area in question. If at the conclusion of their brief search, the officer finds nothing that sustains probable cause, the suspects is permitted to leave. The facts of Wardlow are not very distinguishable from our client’s case. Wardlow fled at the site of police activity in the area. Two police officers were suspicious of his actions, especially since this area of the city was know for narcotics trafficking. When the two officers caught up with Wardlow, they performed a protective pat down for weapons on him. During the pat down, they discovered a gun in the paper bag that he was holding. The Supreme Court held this to be a legal search and seizure By applying the Wardlow decision to Ms. Jones’ case, it is evident that she committed acts that woul...
