Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Indianapolis Vs. Edmond

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 28, 2000

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

77 entries 7 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Michigan Vs. Tyler US Supreme Court · May 31, 1978
  2. United States Vs. Brignoni-ponce US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1975
  3. Colorado Vs. Bertine US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1987
  4. United States Vs. Martinez-fuerte US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
    Relied / Followed
  5. Delaware Vs. Prouse US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979
  6. New York Vs. Burger US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1987
  7. United States Vs. Place US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1983
  8. U.S. 32 (2000) October Term, 2000 Syllabus City of Indianapolis Et Al. V. Edmond
    Search
  9. has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
    Search
  10. S. 543 , and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  11. to verify drivers' licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  12. similar to that in Sitz, or merely likened to the antismuggling purpose in MartinezFuerte. Neither Whren v. United
    Search
  13. States, 517 U. S. 806 , nor Bond v. United
    Search
  14. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  15. U. S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
    Search
  16. Edmond v. Goldsmith
    Search
  17. the Fourth Amendment. Edmond v. Goldsmith
    Search
  18. A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller
    Search
  19. See, e. g., Vernonia School Dist. J,7J v. Acton
    Search
  20. Treasury Employees v. Von
    Search
  21. Skinner v. Railway
    Search
  22. particularized suspicion of misconduct, provided that those searches are appropriately limited. See, e. g., New York v. Burger
    Search
  23. Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  24. supra, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  25. U. S. 444 (1990). In addition, in Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  26. earlier cases addressing the constitutionality of other Border Patrol traffic-checking operations. See United States v. Ortiz
    Search
  27. Almeida-Sanchez v. United
    Search
  28. to police the border were a significant factor in our Martinez-Fuerte decision. For example, in United States v. Montoya
    Search
  29. exterior of each car at the Indianapolis checkpoints does not transform the seizure into a search. See United States v. Place
    Search
  30. Ibid. Cf. United States v. Turpin
    Search
  31. that our prior cases preclude an inquiry into the purposes of the checkpoint program. For example, they cite Whren v. United
    Search
  32. States, 517 U. S. 806 (1996), and Bond v. United
    Search
  33. the validity of searches conducted in the absence of probable cause. See id., at 811-812 (distinguishing Florida v. Wells
    Search
  34. Accordingly, Whren does not preclude an inquiry into programmatic purpose in such contexts. Cf. Chandler v. Miller
    Search
  35. quoting Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  36. Michigan v. Clif
    Search
  37. Brown v. Texas
    Search
  38. from one of the consolidated cases indicated that the stops lasted between three and five minutes. See United States v. MartinezFuerte
    Search
  39. of officers in the field could result in unlimited interference with motorists' use of the highways. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  40. were found in 0.12 percent of the stopped vehicles. See 428 U. S., at 554. In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  41. s use of a highway sobriety checkpoint after applying the framework set out in Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and Brown v. Texas
    Search
  42. the use of roadblocks to check for driver's licenses and vehicle registrations was expressly recognized in Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  43. interests cannot be seriously disputed, as the 49 people arrested for offenses unrelated to drugs can attest. Edmond v. Goldsmith
    Search
  44. these roadblock seizures, it is constitutionally irrelevant that petitioners also hoped to interdict drugs. In Whren v. United
    Search
  45. have upheld roadblocks that check for driver's licenses and vehicle registrations. See, e. g., United States v. Galindo-Gonzales
    Search
  46. United States v. McFayden
    Search
  47. of those responsible for it, be it police officers or members of a city council, are irrelevant. Cf. Scott v. United
    Search
  48. objective effect of the State's actions on the privacy of the individual that animates the Fourth Amendment. See Bond v. United
    Search
  49. analysis.4 With these checkpoints serving two important state interests, the remaining prongs of the Brown v. Texas
    Search
  50. been applied to seizures of automobiles. 53 pose anything other than the contraband items. United States v. Place
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial