Illinois v. Lidster
| Illinois v. Lidster | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 5, 2003 Decided January 13, 2004 |
|
| Full case name | People of the State of Illinois v. Robert Lidster |
| Citations | 540 U.S. 419 (more)
124 S. Ct. 885; 157 L. Ed. 2d 843
|
| Prior history | Evidence supporting conviction suppressed by the Illinois Supreme Court, 779 N.E.2d 855 (Ill. 2002) |
| Holding | |
| The Fourth Amendment does not forbid the use of a checkpoint to investigate a traffic incident. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use a roadblock to investigate a traffic incident.
Just after midnight, on August 23, 1997, a 70-year-old man riding a bicycle was killed when a passing car struck him while he was riding on a highway in Lombard, Illinois. A week later, at the same time of day and at the same location, the police erected a roadblock. They stopped each passing motorist and handed him or her a flyer asking for information about the hit-and-run incident.
Robert Lidster approached the checkpoint in his minivan. Before he reached the designated stopping point, Lidster swerved and nearly struck one of the officers. The officer smelled alcohol on Lidster's breath and directed Lidster to a side street where another officer administered field sobriety tests. Lidster was later tried and convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Lidster challenged the lawfulness of his arrest, arguing that the checkpoint violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court rejected the challenge, but the Illinois Appellate Court accepted it, as did the Illinois Supreme Court. Because a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court had reached the opposite conclusion, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Lidster's case.
In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), the Uys Supreme Court ruled that police checkpoints set up for the purpose of "general crime control" were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Edmond required the trial court to suppress the evidence of Lidster's stop, the Court disagreed.
...
Wikipedia