Are they unreasonable searches and seizures?
The Supreme Court previously has upheld roadblocks to check for the presence of illegal aliens (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte [1976]) and to check for signs of impaired driving (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz [1990]). In Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court was asked to look at the use of police roadblocks for the purpose of interdicting drugs. The Case The case arose when the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, began setting up roadblocks on the highways to stop a predetermined number of vehicles. The officers at these roadblocks would ask for a driver s license and registration and then explain to the driver that he or she had been stopped at a drug checkpoint. The police looked for signs of driver impairment and then visually inspected the outside of the vehicle. What made these roadblocks different from others that the Supreme Court has looked at in the past is that the city’s (written) roadblock policy also emphasized that a drug detection dog will walk around and examine every
The Supreme Court previously has upheld roadblocks to check for the presence of illegal aliens ( United States v. Martinez-Fuerte [1976]) and to check for signs of impaired driving ( Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz [1990]). In Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court was asked to look at the use of police roadblocks for the purpose of interdicting drugs. The Case The case arose when the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, began setting up roadblocks on the highways to stop a predetermined number of vehicles. The officers at these roadblocks would ask for a driver’s license and registration and then explain to the driver that he or she had been stopped at a drug checkpoint. The police looked for signs of driver impairment and then visually inspected the outside of the vehicle. What made these roadblocks different from others that the Supreme Court has looked at in the past is that the city’s (written) roadblock policy also emphasized that “a drug detection dog will walk around and examine ev
