Illinois v. Lidster
Robert Lidster was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol after being stopped at a police roadblock set up to obtain information from motorists regarding a hit-and-run accident that took place one week earlier, at the same location, and at the same time of day. Lidster filed a motion to quash his arrest on the grounds that the roadblock was a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, although the Supreme Court has made exceptions for border checkpoints designed to intercept illegal aliens and sobriety checkpoints designed to remove drunk drivers from the road. In Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court found checkpoints unconstitutional when set up primarily for general crime control. The trial court denied Lidster’s motion and found him guilty of driving under the influence, and the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the appellate court, holding that gathering information about the perpetrator of a crime is part of general crime control, and therefore an impermissible justification under Edmond for police to set up a roadblock.
Question Presented:
Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, stopping all oncoming motorists to hand
out flyers about the offense and arresting motorists for drunk driving.
