Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Indianapolis vs. Edmond
531 U.S. 32, 121S. ct.447, 148 L. Ed. 2D 333(2000)
Facts: In an attempt to discover and intercept unlawful narcotics on transit across the city, Indianapolis police implemented a highway checkpoint program, where motorists would be stopped at designated checkpoints, and their vehicles searched for narcotics. The checks lasted no more than five minutes and involved both an open-view examination, and a sniffer dog program. Two motorists, one of them James Edmond, brought suit against the state on grounds that the checkpoint program violated the search and seizure provisions of both the Indiana Constitution and the Fourth Amendment (Carmen, 2013).
Is a highway checkpoint program whose primary goal is the discovery and interception of unlawful drugs consistent with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment?
Holding: No; a vehicle examination at a highway checkpoint constitutes an unlawful search, particularly if the purpose of the same is indistinguishable from the overall interest in controlling crime.
Dissent: three judges dissented on grounds that the program served the interest of the state, with only very minimal intrusion on privacy, and that it could not be termed unconstitutional just because of the dual purpose of crime control. Justice Clarence Thomas expressed doubt over the correctness of past decisions, which the court had used to influence its decision.
Reasoning: the Supreme Court established that since the checkpoint program was based on the need to obtain evidence of ordinary criminal activity, it was subject to the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment. If such highway checks were approved just because they would assist police in obtaining evidence of criminal activity, then there would be no reason why they wouldn't do the same to intercept suspects of any other ordinary criminal activity. In the end, police intrusion would become a routine part of citizens' lives. There is an ever-present possibility that inspections and interrogations may reveal that a given motorist is engaging in unlawful activity, and the justification of highway checks cannot, therefore, be based solely on this possibility.
Significance: this was a landmark ruling, which expanded the scope and the practical protections of the Fourth Amendment to an activity that most people considered normal.
References
Carmen, R. (2013). Criminal Procedure: Law and Traffic (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
An example would be if an office approached a car and saw an open container of liquor, or if he saw what appeared to be crack rocks on the dash board he would be able to search the rest of the car. When it comes to searching a house without permission the officer must obtain a warrant and that can be obtained only if a judge is convinced there is
Further, these writs, once issued, could be reused, and did not expire until the death of the reigning monarch (Knappman, 33). In Massachusetts, a group of colonial merchants, represented by James Otis, petitioned the Superior Court to refuse any new applications of writ following the death of George II. Otis, using the phrase "A man's house is his castle," argued in the case that the writs were a direct violation
The rights given under Fourth amendment are very clear and the search warrants that are issued have to clearly state the reasons for the search being conducted. The reasons must be clear, express and concise. There can be no fishing exercise. If the party concerned gives an acceptance for search after the illegal entry was done, then even the consent is tainted and invalid. What that means is that
Warrants for Digital DataA search warrant is a legal document issued by a judge or a magistrate, giving law enforcement officials the authority to search a particular property or area for specific evidence related to a crime (Kerr, 2005). Its primary purpose is to balance the individual's right to privacy and the state's need to conduct investigations to enforce the law. The legal threshold for obtaining a search warrant includes
Traffic Stop In the example, four men of unidentified race, acting in an unpredictable way in a marginal area of a city, fled in a car when asked simple questions by police. The police pursued, pulled them over, questioned them, and found that their stories did not seem truthful. Items found in the car were eventually connected to a crime. According to LaFave (2004), the only issue in such a case is
search and seizure laws. The writer uses several cases to present a detailed exploration of search and seizure laws and how the courts rule when they are challenged. There were five sources used to complete this paper. The Constitution of the United States provides protection from illegal search and seizures through the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is written in such a way that it can be vague when it