Search for: ""Indianapolis v. Edmond" OR "531 U.S. 32"" Results 1 - 20 of 31
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2010, 7:24 am
Edmond, 531 U.S. 32. 44 (2000) ('[T]he Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to ... catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. [read post]
9 Jul 2017, 12:29 pm by Danny Glover
Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)], and t Continue Reading The post What do I have to do at a checkpoint? [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 5:26 am
Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37-38 (2000); Michigan Dept. of State Police v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 8:51 am
Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 48 (2000) (“Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 7:23 am by B.W. Barnett
Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), wherein the Court noted that it has “never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 10:59 am
Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000) for the proposition that roadblocks that are set up solely to trap drug offenders have been found to violate the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 7:51 am by SHG
City of Indianapolis v. [read post]