City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (99-1030) 531 U.S. 32 (2000) ___
Syllabus	Opinion [ O'Connor ]	Dissent [ Rehnquist ]	Dissent [ Thomas ]
HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version

THOMAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

99-1030

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond

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

---

99-1030 Argued: October 3, 2000 --- Decided: 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.