Wainwright v. City of New Orleans

Background

A Tulane law student was stopped late at night after officers said he fit the description of a murder suspect who had a distinctive forearm tattoo. The officers asked him to remove his jacket to check for the tattoo. He refused, saying he would not be humiliated, and was arrested for vagrancy, later charged with resisting officers and reviling the police, and then convicted in Louisiana courts following trials and appeals.

Reasoning

The main question was whether police may stop and try to identify a pedestrian who fits a suspect description and whether a stopped person may lawfully refuse to cooperate. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam order, dismissed the petition as improvidently granted and declined to decide those constitutional questions. Several Justices, in separate opinions, said the case record is too incomplete to resolve how much force was used or whether the stop and search were lawful.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to rule, the lower-court convictions and the state-court findings remain in place. The decision leaves unresolved whether and when police may detain people who resemble suspects, and whether civilians may resist an unlawful search. This is not a final ruling on the constitutional issues and could be revisited in a better-recorded case.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing the arrest and stationhouse search were unlawful and that the record supported reversing and remanding. Another concurrence warned against inferring broad rules from this dismissal and emphasized deciding cases on full records.