In certain types of checkpoints and roadblocks, no individualized suspicion for any driver or vehicle is required. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond held unconstitutional the use of a roadblock to detect criminal wrongdoing. Explain this case as an exception to the general rule on roadblocks. Do these roadblock cases allowing suspicionless intrusions establish
dangerous precedents which will greatly weaken Fourth Amendment protections? Explain your position and provide examples.
What will be an ideal response?
In Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court held that police may not use roadblocks to
detect criminal wrongdoing, while still allowing roadblocks or use in other law
enforcement functions. These cases allowing suspicionless intrusions do not
establish dangerous precedents which will greatly weaken Fourth Amendment
protections, because they deal with the regulation of traffic and protection of the
national borders, not common non-traffic criminal matters. An example is that
police are not allowed to set up a roadblock to search for burglars.
You might also like to view...
Until penicillin came along as a substitute painkiller in 1928, which drug was mainly used as a painkiller
a. Marijuana b. Heroin c. Opium d. Ecstasy
Dadullah had, until his death in 2007, been front and center of the military activities of the Taliban. Dadullah traveled to Pakistan to raise money and arms for the insurgency and focused his attention on the ___________ in Karachi to recruit his fighters
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word
Pulling levers is a deterrence response targeting gang members with chronic involvement in serious crime and setting clear expectations for their behavior
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Which type of transaction is the most effective for resolving conflict?
a. Crossed b. Ulterior c. Bidirectional d. Parallel