531 U.S. 32 (2000), 99-1030, Indianapolis v. Edmond

Docket Nº:No. 99-1030
Citation:531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333, 69 U.S.L.W. 4009
Party Name:CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. EDMOND et al.
Case Date:November 28, 2000
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 32

531 U.S. 32 (2000)

121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333, 69 U.S.L.W. 4009

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al.

v.

EDMOND et al.

No. 99-1030

United States Supreme Court

November 28, 2000

Argued October 3, 2000

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

Syllabus

Petitioner city operates vehicle checkpoints on its roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Respondents, who were each stopped at such a checkpoint, filed suit, claiming that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court denied respondents a preliminary injunction, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened the Fourth Amendment.

Held:

Because the checkpoint program's primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 37-48.

(a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers' licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Pp. 37-40.

(b) The latter purpose is what principally distinguishes the checkpoints at issue from those the Court has previously approved, which were designed to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Petitioners state that the Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte checkpoints had the same ultimate purpose of arresting those suspected of committing crimes. Securing the border and apprehending drunken drivers are law enforcement activities, and authorities employ arrests and criminal prosecutions to pursue these goals. But if this case were to rest at such a high level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities' ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. The checkpoint program is also not justified by the severe and intractable nature of the drug problem. The gravity of the threat alone

Page 33

cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, the Court must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. Nor can the checkpoints' purpose be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to that in Sitz, or merely likened to the antismuggling purpose in Martinez-Fuerte. Neither Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, nor Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, precludes an inquiry into the checkpoint program's purposes. And if the program could be justified by its lawful secondary purposes of keeping impaired motorists off the road and verifying licenses and registrations, authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they also included a license or sobriety check. That is why the Court must determine the primary purpose of the checkpoint program. This holding does not alter the constitutional status of the checkpoints approved in Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, or the type of checkpoint suggested in Prouse. It also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches in airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute. Nor does it impair police officers' ability to act appropriately upon information that they properly learn during a checkpoint stop justified by a lawful primary purpose. Finally, the purpose inquiry is to be conducted only at the programmatic level and is not an invitation to probe the minds of individual officers acting at the scene. Pp. 40-48.

183 F.3d 659, affirmed.

O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined as to Part I, post, p. 48. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 56.

A. Scott Chinn argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Anthony W. Overholt, Matthew R. Gutwein, and Thomas M. Fisher.

Patricia A. Millett argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, and Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben.

Page 34

Kenneth J. Falk argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Jacquelyn E. Bowie, Sean C. Lemieux, and Steven R. Shapiro.[*]

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444(1990), and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543(1976), we held that brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. We now consider the constitutionality of a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.

I

In August 1998, the city of Indianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints on Indianapolis roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. The city conducted six such roadblocks between August and November that year, stopping

Page 35

1,161 vehicles and arresting 104 motorists. Fifty-five arrests were for drug-related crimes, while 49 were for offenses unrelated to drugs. Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659, 661 (CA7 1999). The overall "hit rate" of the program was thus approximately nine percent.

The parties stipulated to the facts concerning the operation of the checkpoints by the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) for purposes of the preliminary injunction proceedings instituted below. At each checkpoint location, the police stop a predetermined number of vehicles. Approximately 30 officers are stationed at the checkpoint. Pursuant to written directives issued by the chief of police, at least one officer approaches the vehicle, advises the driver that he or she is being stopped briefly at a drug checkpoint, and asks the driver to produce a license and registration. The officer also looks for signs of impairment and conducts an open-view examination of the vehicle from the outside. A narcotics-detection dog walks around the outside of each stopped vehicle.

The directives instruct the officers that they may conduct a search only by consent or based on the appropriate quantum of particularized suspicion. The officers must conduct each stop in the same manner until particularized suspicion develops, and the officers have no discretion to stop any vehicle out of sequence. The city agreed in the stipulation to operate the checkpoints in such a way as to ensure that the total duration of each stop, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, would be five minutes or less.

The affidavit of Indianapolis Police Sergeant Marshall DePew, although it is technically outside the parties' stipulation, provides further insight concerning the operation of the checkpoints. According to Sergeant DePew, checkpoint locations are selected weeks in advance based on such considerations as area crime statistics and traffic flow. The checkpoints are generally operated during daylight hours and are identified with lighted signs reading, " 'NARCOTICS

Page 36

CHECKPOINT _____ MILE AHEAD, NARCOTICS K-9 IN USE, BE PREPARED TO STOP.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a. Once a group of cars has been stopped, other traffic proceeds without interruption until all the stopped cars have been processed or diverted for further processing. Sergeant DePew also stated that the average stop for a vehicle not subject to further processing lasts two to three minutes or less.

Respondents James Edmond and Joell Palmer were each stopped at a narcotics checkpoint in late September 1998. Respondents then filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the class of all motorists who had been stopped or were subject to being stopped in the future at the Indianapolis drug checkpoints. Respondents claimed that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the search and seizure provision of the Indiana Constitution. Respondents requested declaratory and injunctive relief for the class, as well as damages and attorney's fees for themselves.

Respondents then moved for a preliminary injunction. Although respondents alleged that the officers who stopped them did not follow the written directives, they agreed to the stipulation concerning the operation of the checkpoints for purposes of the preliminary injunction proceedings. The parties also stipulated to certification of the plaintiff class. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed to class certification and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the checkpoint program did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Edmond v. Goldsmith, 38 F.Supp.2d 1016 (1998). A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened the Fourth Amendment. 183 F.3d 659 (1999). The panel denied rehearing. We granted certiorari, 528 U.S. 1153(2000), and now affirm.

Page 37

II

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. A search or seizure is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
1080 practice notes
  • 132 F.Supp.3d 1085 (E.D.Wis. 2015), 12-CV-1198, Belleau v. Wall
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • September 21, 2015
    ...cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose." 531 U.S. 32, 42, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000). The Court also noted in Edmond its particular reluctance " to recognize excepti......
  • Belleau v. Wall, 092115 WIEDC, 12-CV-1198
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • September 21, 2015
    ...threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose." 531 U.S. 32, 42 (2000). The Court also noted in Edmond its particular reluctance "to recognize exceptions to the general rule of individualized sus......
  • United States v. Jackson, 020204 INSDC, IP 03-79-CR-1 H/F
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Southern District of Indiana
    • February 2, 2004
    ...that, at any time if opened by the carrier, may be exposed to the plain view of a bystander. See also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000) ("Like the dog sniff in Place, a sniff by a dog that simply walks around a car is much less intrusive than a typical search."......
  • 99 P.3d 578 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 2004), 1 CA-JV 04-0074, In re Leopoldo L.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 21, 2004
    ...suspicion of wrongdoing is generally unreasonable and impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000). However, suspicionless searches have been upheld in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Nat'l Treasury Emp......
  • Free signup to view additional results
981 cases
  • 132 F.Supp.3d 1085 (E.D.Wis. 2015), 12-CV-1198, Belleau v. Wall
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • September 21, 2015
    ...cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose." 531 U.S. 32, 42, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000). The Court also noted in Edmond its particular reluctance " to recognize excepti......
  • Belleau v. Wall, 092115 WIEDC, 12-CV-1198
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • September 21, 2015
    ...threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose." 531 U.S. 32, 42 (2000). The Court also noted in Edmond its particular reluctance "to recognize exceptions to the general rule of individualized sus......
  • United States v. Jackson, 020204 INSDC, IP 03-79-CR-1 H/F
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Southern District of Indiana
    • February 2, 2004
    ...that, at any time if opened by the carrier, may be exposed to the plain view of a bystander. See also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000) ("Like the dog sniff in Place, a sniff by a dog that simply walks around a car is much less intrusive than a typical search."......
  • 99 P.3d 578 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 2004), 1 CA-JV 04-0074, In re Leopoldo L.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 21, 2004
    ...suspicion of wrongdoing is generally unreasonable and impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000). However, suspicionless searches have been upheld in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Nat'l Treasury Emp......
  • Free signup to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Illinois Police Officer Drug and Alcohol Tests Raise Constitutional Questions
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • January 31, 2018
    ...The Fourth Amendment Under the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures must be "reasonable." City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000). Typically, a search or seizure is unreasonable "in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing." Id. However, th......
  • Illinois Police Officer Drug And Alcohol Tests Raise Constitutional Questions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 31, 2018
    ...The Fourth Amendment Under the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures must be "reasonable." City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000). Typically, a search or seizure is unreasonable "in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing." Id. However, th......
  • Maryland v. King: Possibly The Most Important Criminal Procedure Case in Decades
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • March 19, 2014
    ...examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties,” Id. at 314). See also Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 38 (2000) (invalidating Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint program designed to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing) (“[i]n none of th......
  • The Massachusetts Uniform Trust Code: Context, Content, and Critique
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • February 2, 2015
    ...Therefore, the court ruled that the sniff was minimally invasive and compromised no privacy inter- est. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), where a roadblock was set up for the sole purpose of having a trained canine sniff random motor vehicles for the presence of narcoti......
  • Free signup to view additional results
90 books & journal articles
  • Mere Platitudes: The "Domino Effect" of School-Search Cases on the Fourth Amendment Rights of Every American
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 91-2, February 2006
    • February 1, 2006
    ...Creating a Chasm in Fourth Amendment Analysis, 32 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 89, 100 (1992). [59] Compare City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000) (finding no "special needs" and observing that "[a] search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individ......
  • Motions to Suppress Tangible Evidence
    • United States
    • Trial Manual for Defense Attorneys in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
    • June 23, 2014
    ...must be conducted in accordance with “standard criteria”); Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 45 Jail personnel may also conduct an intrusive visual search of the body—including body cavities—of an individual who is being admitted into the g......
  • The myth of conservative Supreme Court: the October 2000 term.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 26 Nbr. 1, January 2003
    • January 1, 2003
    ...v. Ry. Labor Executive Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (conductors). (89.) 532 U.S. 67 (2001). (90.) Id. at 78-79. (91.) Id. at 79-83. (92.) 531 U.S. 32 (2000). (93.) See Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (drunk drivers); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (197......
  • Fourth Amendment privacy interests.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Nbr. 2001, September 2001
    • September 22, 2001
    ...not be broadcast to the world.") (10) See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979). (11) E.g., City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 38 (2000). (12) E.g., Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665-66 (1989). (13) See supra note 7 and accompanying text. (14) See United......
  • Free signup to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 26, 2013
    • March 26, 2013
    ...--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Id. \20\ Id. (quoting City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 47-48) (internal citation As explained in the decision, the AIT scanners then in use produce a ``crude image of an unclothed person * * *.''\21......