Does unprovoked flight + high-crime area = reasonable suspicion? Explain your response

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Unprovoked flight from police officers in a high-crime area can amount to reasonable
suspicion, according to the United States Supreme Court decision in Illinois v.
Wardlow. A person's presence in a high crime area in and of itself is not enough to
support reasonable suspicion. However, police can take into account the relevant
characteristics of a location in determining whether circumstances warrant further
investigation.
Likewise, courts have recognized that nervous, evasive behavior is relevant in
determining whether reasonable suspicion exists. Wardlow declared that headlong
flight is the ultimate act of evasion. The Court conceded that flight may not
necessarily indicate that a person is engaged in wrongdoing. However, it is certainly
suggestive of such. Conduct justifying a stop can be ambiguous and possibly
susceptible to an innocent explanation.
Wardlow declared that Terry v. Ohio accepted the risk that allowing a stop based on
reasonable suspicion will mean that police officers may sometimes stop innocent
behavior. Likewise, not all persons arrested on probable cause turn out to have
committed a crime. The Fourth Amendment does not require absolute certainty, only a
sufficient level of justification for the governmental action required.