City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
United States Supreme Court
531 U.S. 32 (2000)
- Written by Sarah Venti, JD
Facts
In order to interdict illegal drugs, the City of Indianapolis began to set up vehicle checkpoints in 1998. The city had six such checkpoints, and between August and November of 1998 it stopped 1,161 vehicles and arrested 104 motorists. Fifty-five of the arrests were for drug-related offenses, while 49 were unrelated to drugs. The procedure was as follows: at each checkpoint the police stopped a predetermined number of vehicles, and the driver was asked for a license and the car registration. The driver in each case was inspected for signs of impairment. The directives authorized the police to conduct a search only by consent or if they had “particularized suspicion.” The officers were required to stop cars in a particular sequence, and they could not stop vehicles out of sequence. A dog was used to sniff around the car. Moreover, officers had no discretion to vary the predetermined plan for the checkpoint search. Edmond and Palmer (plaintiffs) were stopped at such a checkpoint in September 1998. They filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all motorists who had been, or would be, stopped. Edmond and Palmer claimed the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. The court of appeals held that the roadblocks violated the amendment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
