INDIANAPOLIS v.EDMOND (99-1030)
183 F.3d 659, affirmed
Syllabus Opinion
[ O'Connor ]
Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]
Dissent
[ Thomas ]

Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 99-1030


CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al., PETITIONERS v.
JAMES EDMOND et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

[November 28, 2000]

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

Taken together, our decisions in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), stand for the proposition that suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops. I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided. Indeed, I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered "reasonable" a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.

Respondents did not, however, advocate the overruling of Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, and I am reluctant to consider such a step without the benefit of briefing and argument. For the reasons given by The Chief Justice, I believe that those cases compel upholding the program at issue here. I, therefore, join his opinion.