skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 200917 Find in a Library
Title: City of Indianapolis v. Edmond: The Constitutionality of Drug Interdiction Checkpoints
Journal: The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  Volume:93  Issue:1  Dated:Fall 2002  Pages:227-257
Author(s): Ann Mulligan
Editor(s): Matthew Burke
Date Published: 2002
Page Count: 31
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper presents arguments in the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2001) that drug interdiction checkpoints are unconstitutional violations of the fourth amendment (the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures).
Abstract: The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals; and requires a finding of individualized suspicion or probable cause. However, over the years several exceptions have occurred. In 1998, the City of Indianapolis developed a system of vehicle checkpoints designed to interdict illegal narcotics. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the drug interdiction program. It held that the drug interdiction checkpoints were unconstitutional violations of the fourth amendment because the primary purpose of the checkpoints was general crime control. However, in previous roadblock cases of the United States v. Martinez-Fuerte and Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, it was clearly established that roadblocks in certain situations are constitutional. This paper argues that the decision in City of Indianapolis was incorrect. The Court adopted reasoning different from its previous analyses of roadblock cases. The Court’s promise of greater fourth amendment protection is deceptive since the same types of seizures might be upheld if they are conducted in a program with a different stated primary purpose. Challenges to roadblock cases will increase and lower courts will lack clear guidance about how to approach them and how to evaluate the constitutionality of roadblocks under the fourth amendment.
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Judicial decisions; Municipal courts; Probable cause; Reasonable suspicion; Roadblocks; Search and seizure; Vehicle searches; Vehicle stops; Warrantless search
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.