skip navigation
search

INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND (99-1030) 531 U.S. 32 (2000)
183 F.3d 659, affirmed.
Syllabus
 
Opinion
[ O’Connor ]
Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]
Dissent
[ Thomas ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 99—1030

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al., PETITIONERS v.
JAMES EDMOND et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

[November 28, 2000]

    Justice Thomas, dissenting.

    Taken together, our decisions in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez&nbhyph;Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), stand for the proposition that suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops. I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided. Indeed, I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered “reasonable” a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.

    Respondents did not, however, advocate the overruling of Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, and I am reluctant to consider such a step without the benefit of briefing and argument. For the reasons given by The Chief Justice, I believe that those cases compel upholding the program at issue here. I, therefore, join his opinion.