SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

With the proliferation of camera phones over the past two decades, the American public has witnessed a steadily increasing stream of high-profile incidents involving Black people suffering harm (and even death) at the hands of law enforcement. These tragic episodes, captured in real time and displayed across news and social media outlets nationally, have uncovered and fueled deep-seated fears within the Black community. And they confirm for the rest of the country what Black adults and children have long known: that there are compelling and rational reasons why Black and Brown individuals in the United States, and particularly young Black men like the defendant in this case, might be skeptical—even terrified—of police. Recent empirical research substantiates these observations and shows that a young Black man’s “flight” from law enforcement is often far more likely to indicate an innocent fear of police than it is to support reasonable suspicions of criminal activity.

This appeal presents an opportunity to bring Maryland law into alignment with these realities. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), that an individual’s “unprovoked flight” in a “high crime area” created sufficient “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity to justify a stop, interrogation, and search of that individual under the framework prescribed in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals interpreted Wardlow as providing that “unprovoked flight from law enforcement in a high-crime area”—by itself—can be enough to trigger such an intrusion. Ct. Spec. App. Op. at 11 (Mar. 24, 2022) (hereinafter, “COSA Op.”). In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Special Appeals acknowledged that a growing number of state and federal courts—following the standard announced in Terry and applied in Wardlow—account for the “reality that Black individuals have no shortage of innocent reasons to flee at the sight of law enforcement.” Id. at 13. But the Court of Special Appeals, “constrained by [its] place in Maryland’s judicial hierarchy,” thought itself powerless to consider that reality in assessing the reasonableness of the detention and search at issue in this case. Id. at 13, 16.

As an initial matter, Wardlow did not expressly adopt a categorical rule that law enforcement is constitutionally permitted to stop and frisk anyone perceived to be fleeing from police in a purportedly “high-crime” area. See People v. Flores, 38 Cal. App. 5th 617, 631 (2019) (rejecting the argument “that ‘flight’ plus ‘high crime area’ equals reasonable suspicion for a detention,” and confirming that “Wardlow . . . did not make such a bright-line holding”). Indeed, the term “high-crime area” has itself eluded consistent definition. Instead, Wardlow applied Terry’s holistic “reasonable suspicion” standard to the unique facts and circumstances presented. But the Wardlow Court made clear that any reasonable suspicion analysis must be based on “commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior”—a directive that necessarily requires courts to account for societal advances, including evolving social science, over time.

Our understanding of human behavior has progressed dramatically in the twenty years since Wardlow was decided. State and federal courts around the country have relied on an expanding body of empirical evidence to deem unconstitutional under Terry police stops based on a Black individual’s flight in a supposedly “high-crime area.” Consistent with Wardlow’s teaching and that jurisdictional trend, this Court can—and should—take the opportunity to clarify that in Maryland, too, the “commonsense” implication of a Black man’s flight from police is not criminal guilt, but rather an understandable desire to avoid an interaction fraught with fear and distrust. Amici therefore urge the Court to reverse the decision below, and to hold that the mere fact of flight from law enforcement in a “highcrime area” did not, without more, give the officers in this case adequate cause to stop and search the defendant, Mr. Washington.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Over the past two decades, the widespread availability of camera phones has led to a noticeable increase in reports of harm, and even death, experienced by Black individuals during interactions with law enforcement. These events, often broadcast across news and social media, have intensified existing fears within the Black community. They also confirm for the broader public a reality that Black adults and children have long understood: there are valid reasons why Black and Brown individuals, particularly young Black men, might be apprehensive or even fearful of police. Recent studies support these observations, indicating that a young Black man's attempt to leave the presence of law enforcement often stems from an innocent fear of police rather than indicating criminal activity.

This appeal provides an opportunity to update Maryland law to reflect these current understandings. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Illinois v. Wardlow, determined that an individual's "unprovoked flight" in a "high crime area" could establish enough "reasonable suspicion" of criminal behavior to justify a stop, questioning, and search, according to the principles of Terry v. Ohio. In the current case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals interpreted Wardlow to mean that "unprovoked flight from law enforcement in a high-crime area," by itself, could be sufficient cause for such an intervention. The Court of Special Appeals acknowledged that a growing number of courts now recognize that "Black individuals have no shortage of innocent reasons to flee at the sight of law enforcement." However, the court felt it could not consider this reality due to its position within Maryland's judicial system.

It is important to note that Wardlow did not explicitly create a rule allowing law enforcement to stop and search anyone perceived to be fleeing from police in an area labeled "high-crime." Courts have confirmed that Wardlow did not establish such a rigid rule. In fact, the term "high-crime area" itself lacks a consistent definition. Instead, Wardlow applied the comprehensive "reasonable suspicion" standard from Terry to the specific details of that case. The Wardlow Court emphasized that any analysis of reasonable suspicion must be based on "commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior," which requires courts to consider societal changes and new scientific knowledge over time.

Our understanding of human behavior has advanced considerably in the two decades since Wardlow was decided. Courts across the country have used new evidence to rule that police stops based on a Black individual's flight in an alleged "high-crime area" are unconstitutional under Terry. Consistent with the guidance from Wardlow and this legal trend, this Court can clarify that in Maryland, the "commonsense" interpretation of a Black man's flight from police is not an indication of guilt, but rather a reasonable desire to avoid an interaction that often involves fear and distrust. Therefore, those supporting this appeal urge the Court to reverse the previous decision. It is argued that the mere act of fleeing from law enforcement in a "high-crime area" did not, by itself, give the officers sufficient reason to stop and search the defendant in this case, Mr. Washington.

Summary

Over the past two decades, the widespread availability of camera phones has led to a noticeable increase in publicized incidents where Black individuals have been harmed or killed by law enforcement. These events, documented in real-time and shared widely, have brought to light significant anxieties within the Black community. For the broader population, these incidents confirm what Black adults and children have long understood: there are valid reasons why Black and Brown individuals, particularly young Black men, might feel apprehensive or even terrified of police. Recent studies support these observations, indicating that a young Black man's decision to flee from law enforcement often reflects an innocent fear of police rather than an indication of criminal behavior.

This appeal offers an opportunity to align Maryland law with these contemporary understandings. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Illinois v. Wardlow concluded that an individual's "unprovoked flight" in a "high crime area" could establish sufficient "reasonable suspicion" to justify a stop, interrogation, and search, according to the framework set in Terry v. Ohio. In the current case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals interpreted Wardlow to mean that "unprovoked flight from law enforcement in a high-crime area," by itself, could warrant such an intervention. While acknowledging that many state and federal courts recognize "that Black individuals have no shortage of innocent reasons to flee at the sight of law enforcement," the Court of Special Appeals stated it was limited by its position in the judicial hierarchy and could not consider this reality when assessing the detention and search.

It is important to note that Wardlow did not explicitly create a categorical rule permitting law enforcement to stop and search anyone perceived to be fleeing from police in a "high-crime" area. Courts have rejected the idea that "flight" combined with a "high crime area" automatically establishes reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, the term "high-crime area" lacks a consistent definition. Instead, Wardlow applied Terry's comprehensive "reasonable suspicion" standard to the specific facts and circumstances of that case. The Wardlow Court emphasized that any analysis of reasonable suspicion must be based on "commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior," which implies considering societal advancements, including developments in social science, over time.

Significant progress has been made in understanding human behavior in the two decades since Wardlow was decided. Courts across the country, both state and federal, have utilized an expanding body of empirical evidence to rule as unconstitutional police stops based on a Black individual's flight in a so-called "high-crime area" under the Terry standard. Consistent with the principles of Wardlow and this jurisdictional trend, this Court has the opportunity to clarify that in Maryland, the "commonsense" interpretation of a Black man's flight from police should not automatically imply criminal guilt. Instead, it can signify an understandable desire to avoid an interaction often marked by fear and distrust. Therefore, it is urged that the Court reverse the previous decision and rule that merely fleeing from law enforcement in a "high-crime area" did not, by itself, provide adequate cause for the officers to stop and search the defendant, Mr. Washington, in this particular case.

Summary

For the past two decades, cell phone cameras have recorded many serious incidents, including deaths, involving Black individuals and law enforcement. These events, shown widely in news and on social media, have increased existing fears within the Black community. They also confirm for others what Black adults and children have long known: there are valid reasons why Black and Brown people, especially young Black men, might be afraid of or distrust police. Recent research supports these observations, showing that when a young Black man runs from law enforcement, it often indicates an innocent fear of police rather than involvement in criminal activity.

This appeal offers a chance to update Maryland law to reflect these current realities. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Illinois v. Wardlow that someone running without clear reason in a "high crime area" created enough "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to allow police to stop, question, and search that person. In the current case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals understood Wardlow to mean that simply running from police in a high-crime area, by itself, could justify such an action. The Court of Special Appeals recognized that many other state and federal courts acknowledge that Black individuals have many innocent reasons to run from law enforcement. However, the court felt it could not consider this reality due to its position within Maryland's court system.

Wardlow did not create a strict rule allowing law enforcement to stop and search anyone who appears to be running from police in an area considered high-crime. For example, one court rejected the idea that "flight" combined with a "high crime area" automatically leads to reasonable suspicion. The term "high-crime area" itself has no single, clear definition. Instead, Wardlow applied a broad "reasonable suspicion" standard to the specific details of that case. The Wardlow Court emphasized that any analysis of reasonable suspicion must be based on "commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior." This means courts must consider new social understanding and research over time.

Our understanding of human behavior has changed significantly in the twenty years since Wardlow. Courts across the country have used new evidence to rule that police stops based on a Black individual running in a so-called "high-crime area" are unconstitutional. Following the principles of Wardlow and this trend, this Court should clarify that in Maryland, too, it is "common sense" to understand that a Black man running from police does not automatically mean he is guilty of a crime. Instead, it can mean he wants to avoid a situation that causes fear and distrust. Therefore, the Court should reverse the earlier decision and rule that running from law enforcement in a "high-crime area" alone was not enough reason for officers to stop and search Mr. Washington.

Summary

Over the last 20 years, people have seen many videos on phones showing Black people being harmed or even dying because of the police. These videos, shared widely, show a deep fear in the Black community. They also show others what Black adults and children have known for a long time: there are good reasons why Black and Brown people, especially young Black men like the person in this case, might be scared of the police. New studies also show that when a young Black man runs from the police, it often means he is afraid, not that he has done something wrong.

This case is a chance to make Maryland law fit these facts. In 2000, the Supreme Court said that if someone runs away without being told to in a place where a lot of crime happens, it gives police a good enough reason to stop, question, and search them. In this case, a Maryland court said that just running away from police in a high-crime area, by itself, can be enough to allow police to stop someone. This Maryland court knew that many other courts are starting to understand that Black people have many good reasons to run when they see the police. But the Maryland court felt it could not change its decision because of its place in the law system.

The Supreme Court case did not say that police can always stop and search anyone who runs from them in a so-called "high-crime" area. The idea of a "high-crime area" is not even clearly defined. Instead, the Supreme Court case looked at all the facts of that specific situation. But the Court also said that judging why people act a certain way should be based on "common sense." This means courts should consider new knowledge, like new studies, over time.

What we know about why people act the way they do has changed a lot in the 20 years since the Supreme Court made its decision. Courts across the country are using new facts to say that it is not right for police to stop Black people just because they run in a supposed "high-crime area." This Court can say that in Maryland, when a Black man runs from the police, it does not mean he is guilty. Instead, it means he is simply trying to avoid a scary and mistrustful meeting. So, it is asked that the Court change the decision in this case. The Court should say that just running away from police in a "high-crime area" was not enough reason for the police to stop and search the person in this case.