Dissent Thomas | End date 2000 | |
Full case name City of Indianapolis, et al. v. James Edmond, et al. Citations 531 U.S. 32 (more)121 S. Ct. 447; 148 L. Ed. 2d 333; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8084; 69 U.S.L.W. 4009; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9549; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6401; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 9 Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Dissent Rehnquist, joined by Thomas; Scalia (only as to Part I) Similar Michigan Department of State P, Illinois v Caballes, Knowles v Iowa, Muehler v Mena, Arizona v Hicks | ||
City of indianapolis v edmond
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches, specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. Previous Supreme Court decisions had given the police power to create roadblocks for the purposes of border security (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte), and removing drunk drivers from the road (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz). This decision stated that the power was limited to situations in which the search was "designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement."
The Court drew a line on check point programs that followed Police v. Sitz (1990) "whose primary purpose" is "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing". The Court refused to "credit the 'general interest in crime control' as justification for a regime of suspicionless stops."
The opinion was delivered by Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined, and Justice Scalia joined as to part I.
Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissent.