1. Is the Court correct? Explain your reasoning
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower courts approval of the drug checkpoint saying, “the checkpoint contravened the Fourth Amendment” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000). The United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision stating that the, “checkpoint program was indistinguishable from a general interest crime control” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000) that violated the Fourth Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court is correct the only reason that law enforcement is allowed to conduct DUI checkpoints is for public safety and border check points are to secure our borders from illegal entry.
2. Is drug detection simply
…show more content…
The checkpoints were organized by the chief of police who authorized the checkpoints and assigned around thirty officers at each one including drug-sniffing dogs. The checkpoints were chosen in advance based on crime statistics and the flow of traffic. Officers posted lighted signs for motorist indicating that they were approaching a drug checkpoint. The officers were instructed to each take a car and to pull over a group of cars all at once to be inspected. They were to ask for drivers licenses and vehicle registrations, while doing that they were instructed to take a quick glance into the vehicles for contraband or anything else that would lead them to believe a crime was being committed or had been committed. Sometime during that, activity a drug-sniffing dog would be walked around the outside of the vehicle. The whole stop was not supposed to last longer than a few minutes unless something is detached by the officer or the dog. Only vehicles with a raised suspicions would be detained longer the rest were to be allowed to leave. Indianapolis Police Department, “conducted six roadblocks stopping 1,161 vehicles which resulted in Fifty-five arrests for drugs and forty-nine arrests for other offenses” (Cornell University Law School LII, …show more content…
They claimed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated as well as their rights under the Indiana Constitution. They asked the court for declaratory relief that is a judge’s determination that a person’s rights have been violated. They requested injunction relief that is a court ordered action preventing a certain action (request to stop future drug checkpoints). They also asked for certification of class that means they wanted to include in their case all the other motorist who were stopped and future motorist from being stopped at drug checkpoints. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, “granted certification and denied the motion for a preliminary injection stating that their right had not been violated” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000). However, that decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who, “then denied rehearing” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000). The United States Supreme Court, “granted certiorari, 528 U.S. 1153 (2000) and affirmed” (Cornell University Law School LII,