City of Indianapolis v.

Edmond

Facts of the case

In 1998, the City of Indianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints in an eff

ort 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 wal
k a narcotics-detection dog around the vehicle. Each stop was to last five minut
es or less, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Both James Edmond an
d 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 w
ere subject to being stopped, alleging that the roadblocks violated the Fourth A
mendment and the search and seizure provision of the Indiana Constitution. The D
istrict Court denied a request for a preliminary injunction, holding that the ch
eckpoint program did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reve
rsed.

Question

Are highway checkpoint programs, whose primary purpose is the discovery and inte
rdiction of illegal narcotics, consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion
No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held th
at because the checkpoint program's primary purpose was indistinguishable from t
he general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendm
ent. "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-presen
t possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motori
st has committed some crime," wrote Justice O'Connor. Chief Justice William H. R
ehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that
the reasonableness of the city's roadblocks depended on whether they served a "
significant state interest with minimal intrusion on motorists."