In the United States v. Hensley case of 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that police officers can stop and search a person if they have reasonable suspicion based on a "wanted flyer" issued by another department. The case arose when Robert Hensley was stopped by St. Bernard, Ohio police based on a flyer from Covington, Kentucky stating he was wanted for armed robbery. During the stop, illegal firearms were found in his vehicle leading to his arrest and conviction under federal law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. Hensley argued that evidence should be suppressed because it resulted from an unlawful stop since he wasn't committing any crime at the time of being pulled over in St.Bernard's jurisdiction. The court held that if flyers had been issued by law enforcement agencies seeking individuals for investigation or apprehension regarding felony offenses then stops could be made with reasonable suspicion even outside their own jurisdiction as long as there is inter-jurisdictional cooperation between departments involved.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hensley, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow police officers to stop and detain individuals based on a "wanted flyer" from another jurisdiction was an overreach of power. He contended that this ruling would encourage law enforcement agencies to issue these flyers without proper justification or oversight, leading to potential abuses of civil liberties. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how such practices could disproportionately affect minority communities who are often subjected to higher levels of police scrutiny and harassment. In his view, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should limit police authority in these situations unless there is clear evidence of criminal activity or danger posed by the individual in question.