In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the Court held that drug interdiction checkpoints:
a. did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were a minor inconvenience
b. did violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were a major inconvenience.
c. did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were indistinguishable from general crime control interests.
d. did violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were indistinguishable from general crime control interests.
d. did violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were indistinguishable from general crime control interests.
You might also like to view...
Prosecutors are often criticized for overcharging. Briefly define the term “overcharging.”
What will be an ideal response?
The high rates of crime in zones of transition are explained by strain theory
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Effective policies to reduce arson rely on:
a. more recreational activities for bored youths. b. better training for arson investigators. c. greater police attention to pyromaniacs. d. more effective regulation of banks, real estate developers, and insurance companies.
A jury trial is when a jury determines the verdict, not a judge.
a. true b. false