City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
2000 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Indianapolis v. Edmond?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that police may not conduct vehicle searches, specifically ones involving drug-sniffing police dogs, at a checkpoint or roadblock without reasonable suspicion.[2] In the case, the Indianapolis Police Department was conducting warrantless searches of vehicles, without individualized suspicion, for the purpose of "general crime control".[3] Previous Supreme Court decisions had given the police power to create roadblocks for the purposes of border security (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte) and removing drunk drivers from the road (Police v. Sitz), but in this decision, the Court limited police power, holding that the search can only occur if it was designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond | |
---|---|
Argued October 3, 2000 Decided November 28, 2000 | |
Full case name | City of Indianapolis, et al. v. James Edmond, et al. |
Citations | 531 U.S. 32 (more) 121 S. Ct. 447; 148 L. Ed. 2d 333; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8084; 69 U.S.L.W. 4009; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9549; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6401; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 9 |
Case history | |
Prior | Edmond v. Goldsmith, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (S.D. Ind. 1998), reversed, 183 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 528 U.S. 1153 (2000). |
Holding | |
Police may not conduct roadblocks "whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." Such roadblocks must have a specific primary purpose, such as keeping roadways safe from impaired drivers, or enforcing border security. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Thomas; Scalia (only as to Part I) |
Dissent | Thomas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV |