City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), 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."
primaryTopic
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), 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."
has abstract
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond ...... also filed a separate dissent.
@en
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
743,484,158
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
citation
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Holding
Police may not conduct roadblo ...... or enforcing border security.
JoinDissent
Thomas; Scalia
JoinMajority
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Litigants
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
majority
Prior
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
SCOTUS
subject
comment
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond ...... mal need for law enforcement."
@en
label
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
City of Indianapolis, et al. v. James Edmond, et al.
@en