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
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
If Harry had been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, the outcome of his case would be dramatically different. The Supreme Court has determined that sobriety checkpoints are legal, as long as they are conducted in a neutral manner. Stopping all approaching cars meets the neutrality requirement. Moreover, the Supreme Court has also determined that the use of drug dogs does not violate one's Fourth Amendment rights; commentators have called this
search and seizure of computers in a criminal case. The paper discuses both the challenges and the instruments and approaches needed in gathering evidence from computers. Gathering Evidence Computer evidence is similar to most other kinds of evidence in several ways. Computer evidence is not that different from the evidence to be collected from a car impounded after a car-chase or the scene of crime in a murder case, in the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now