Don’t Stop

By Wayne C. Fricke; Dec 2000

     On November 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 2000 WL 1740936 (November 28, 2000).  In Edmond, the Court held that it was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to set roadblocks “whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.”  In so doing, the Court distinguished those cases which had upheld roadblocks that were designed to serve “special needs”, such as roadblocks aimed at reducing immediate hazards posed by drunk drivers or roadblocks which were designed to stem illegal immigration at the border.  See Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). 

     The Indianapolis checkpoint scheme at issue in Edmond allowed officers to conduct a search only by consent or based on the “appropriate quantum of particularized suspicion.”  Further, the officers were required to conduct each stop in the same manner until particularized suspicion developed and then the officers could extend the search based on the suspicion.  The cars were stopped in groups with approximately 30 officers stationed at a particular checkpoint.  Prior to reaching the checkpoint, a lighted sign would identify the checkpoint and state, “Narcotics checkpoint _____ miles ahead, narcotics K-9 in use, be prepared to stop.” 

     The Court, in a 6-3 decision, found that while checkpoint programs clearly aimed at reducing immediate hazards posed by the presence of drunk drivers on the road remained constitutional, those checkpoints that were simply directed at a “general interest in crime control” would not withstand constitutional analysis.  As the Court noted, if the primary purpose of the checkpoint is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing there must be  individualized suspicion.  As noted therein, the Court stated if this case were to stand constitutional muster there would be little check on the ability of the authorities to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose.

     Thankfully, we can all be assured at this moment in time that we can drive the highways unimpeded from searches that are designed solely to root out crime.  Additionally, this was not a case brought by “criminals”, but it was  brought by individuals who were stopped at the checkpoint and offended enough to seek a restraining order to prevent themselves and the rest of us from being subjected to indiscriminate and unreasonable searches; thus demonstrating that the Fourth Amendment was not solely designed to protect the guilty, but the innocent as well.