This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Criminal

Apr. 12, 2000

FLIGHT

The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois v. Wardlow , 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000), is not a wholesale abandonment of the work of an earlier incarnation of the court in Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, (1968). Nor is it a gut shot to Fourth Amendment protections generally.

By Anthony V. Baker
        The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000), is not a wholesale abandonment of the work of an earlier incarnation of the court in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, (1968). Nor is it a gut shot to Fourth Amendment protections generally.
        In short, after the smoke has cleared ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)