Home » lyles » City of Indianapolis v. Edmond 2000

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond 2000


1 Comment

  1. Deleted userNov 13, 2016
    Arguing for Edmond: The stopping of motor vehicles without proper suspicion and purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. If you would be unable to receive a search warrant due to stopping and searching people at random without proper intentions or suspicion of finding contraband on a specific individual, I would argue it is unreasonable and invasive. If you are unable to get a warrant for a specific crime done by a specific group or individual, then searching them is unreasonable.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 8, 2016
    Facts:
    – In 1998, the City of Indianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. At each roadblock, one office would conduct an open-view examination of the vehicle. At the same time, another office would walk a narcotics-detection dog around the vehicle. Each stop was to last five minutes or less, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
    – Both James Edmond and Joell Palmer were stopped at one of the narcotics checkpoints. They then filed a lawsuit, on their behalf and the class of motorists who had been stopped or were subject to being stopped, alleging that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment and the search and seizure provision of the Indiana Constitution.
    – The District Court denied a request for a preliminary injunction, holding that the checkpoint program did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed (oyez).
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesNov 12, 2015
    where is the case brief? I am so very dissappointed
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 11, 2015
    I agree with the courts ruling on this case. The 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. What does this mean? It means that there needs to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that there is some sort of criminal activity taking place in order for the search to happen. These random checkpoints did not require the police officers to have reasonable suspicion to stop and search the vehicles. Having a narcotics dog walk around the car and having an officer peering into a vehicle looking for any signs of narcotics is considered a search, even if they are not physically entering the vehicle
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Maria E
    Maria ENov 11, 2015
    Particularized suspicion is really vague, this can mean a number of things to an officer
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 11, 2015
    It is interesting to examine the Court’s rejection of check points for drug searches with check points for illegally driving under the influence of alcohol. While importantly, intoxication poses a direct effect on drivers themselves, even if it is based on a significant state interest and contrasts with the mere possession of an illegal substance, does driving under the influence, which is is a crime in itself, not similarly fall within the category of the general interest of crime control?

    As the facts of the case convey that drug checkpoints represent a search of one’s vehicle, the search of a person (consumption), is not similarly situated, but still relates to the basic intent of a search, that being to discover a potential crime.

    The manner in which one is transported and the other is consumed is a vital distinction; however, this highlights the importance of context, legality of the substance, and justification, in relation to the acceptability of check points in various scenarios.

    Thomas Delregno – Team 4
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 11, 2015
    The primary purpose of these “checkpoints” were considered to be in the general interest of crime control. This argument conflicts with the Fourth Amendment according to the Supreme Court as the state cannot sanction general searches of drivers in the hopes of discovering some crime.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Javiera Vergara
    Javiera VergaraNov 12, 2014
    I suppose decision does not apply to Border Patrol Agents? They have check stops and have been authorized to stop those that look “suspicious”. They also ask you if you are a US Citizen but they don’t ask for papers. You can just lie and they will allow you to pass. quite confusing indeed.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Juju Oluwole
    Juju OluwoleNov 12, 2014
    the Court held that because the checkpoint program’s primary purpose was indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Agnes Kuruc
    Agnes KurucNov 12, 2014
    I thought they still perform roadblocks here in the suburbs of Chicago!
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 12, 2014
    I agree with the Court’s decision and i’m surprised that the decision was not unanimous. Officers of the law should have no right to stop whoever they want and be able to look inside of one’s vehicle without an individual reason.

    Heather Roberts
    Reply

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

css.php