Lindsie Nygaard
PLG103
November 12, 2023
Unit 2 Assignment
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
The issue with this case is the question of “Did the checkpoint violate the Federal Constitution’s 4th
Amendment?”
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution requires that search and seizure be reasonable. The search and
seizure are considered reasonable if, and only if, there is reasonable suspicion present. In the absence of
reasonable suspicion, the search and seizure are considered unconstitutional.
The search and seizure were conducted by City of Indianapolis Police, on these subjects, without
individualized suspicion. The intent to stop a completely random sample of drivers was missed by the
department. There was no probable cause or articulable suspicion to stop any driver, at all. Therefore,
the entire checkpoint program, which was organized by the department, was completed in a
unconstitutional manner.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgment. The checkpoint was determined to be unconstitutional
because the primary purpose of the checkpoint was general crime control. The City of Indianapolis Police
Department set up traffic checkpoints in an attempt to interdict illegal narcotics. In our client's case,
traffic checkpoints were set up to verify license and registrations of each driver. Our client, Mr. Gideon,
was stopped at one of these checkpoints, similar the clients in the City of Indianapolis v. Edmond. The
officers conducting the checkpoint can conduct a search only if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime
being committed, more particularly the crime the checkpoint was set up for. Mr. Gideon Goodtime was
asked to step out of his vehicle for something completely unrelated to the purpose of the checkpoint.
The difference I see between the cases is the lack of information provided by Mr. Gideon Goodtime. I
have many questions that will have to remain unanswered about how the checkpoint was conducted.
