Document: 540 U.S. 419 ILLINOISv.LIDSTER. No. 02-1060. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 5, 2003. Decided January 13, 2004. Police set up a highway checkpoint to obtain information from motorists about hit-and-run accident occurring one week earlier at the same location and time night. Officers stopped each vehicle for 10 15 seconds, asked occupants whether they had seen anything happen there previous weekend, handed driver flyer describing requesting accident. As respondent Lidster approached, his minivan swerved, nearly hitting an officer. The officer smelled alcohol on Lidster's breath. Another administered sobriety test then arrested Lidster. He was convicted in Illinois state court driving under influence alcohol. challenged arrest conviction ground that government obtained evidence through use stop violated Fourth Amendment. trial rejected challenge, but appellate reversed. State agreed, holding that, light Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32, unconstitutional. Held: did not violate Pp. 423-428. (a) Edmond does govern outcome this case. In held absent special circumstances, Amendment forbids police make stops without individualized suspicion primarily general "crime control" purposes. S., 41, 44. Specifically, designed ferret out drug crimes committed by themselves. Here, stop's primary law enforcement purpose determine vehicle's were committing crime, ask occupants, as members public, help providing crime all likelihood others. Edmond's language, well its context, makes clear information-seeking constitutionality before Court. 423-424. (b) Nor require courts apply Edmond-type rule automatic unconstitutionality such stops. fact normally lack cannot itself constitutional outcome, treat motorist's car castle, see, e. g., New York Class, 475 106, 112-113, concerns will sometimes justify suspicion, Michigan Dept. Sitz, 496 444. Moreover, context here (seeking public) is which, definition, concept has little role play, kind event involves or thereof, relevant individual. addition, are less likely provoke anxiety prove intrusive, since brief, questions elicit self-incriminating information, citizens often react positively when help. also ordinarily permits seek public's voluntary cooperation criminal investigation. That importance soliciting assistance offset some degree need motorist — which amounts "seizure" terms, supra, 40 important enough here. Finally, needed prevent unreasonable proliferation checkpoints. Practical considerations limited resources community hostility traffic tieups seem inhibit any proliferation, Amendment's normal insistence be reasonable still provide legal limitation use. 424-427. (c) constitutional. judging reasonableness, hence, constitutionality, looks "the gravity public served seizure, seizure advances interest, severity interference with individual liberty." Brown Texas, 443 47, 51. concern grave, investigating resulted human death, advanced significant given timing location. Most importantly, interfered only minimally liberty sort seeks protect. Viewed objectively, required brief wait line contact few seconds. subjectively, systematic provided reason alarm, no allegation acted discriminatory otherwise unlawful manner. 427-428. 202 Ill. 2d 1, 779 N. E. 855, BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined, STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, joined Parts I II. filed concurring part dissenting part, SOUTER post, p. 428. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS 1 Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General Illinois, argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Linda D. Woloshin, Anne Hoffman, Karen Kaplan, Assistant Attorneys General. 2 Patricia A. Millett States amicus curiae urging reversal. her Olson, Acting Wray, Deputy Dreeben, Patty Merkamp Stemler. 3 Donald John Ramsell respondent.* 4 JUSTICE BREYER 5 This case focuses upon where them recent We hold reasonable, 6 * background follows: On Saturday, August 23, 1997, just after midnight, unknown traveling eastbound Lombard, struck killed 70-year-old bicyclist. drove off identifying himself. About later night place, local more motoring public. 7 cars flashing lights partially blocked lanes highway. blockage forced slow down, leading lines lane. drew checkpoint, would it hand flyer. said "ALERT . FATAL HIT & RUN ACCIDENT" requested "ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING VEHICLE AND DRIVER INVOLVED THIS ACCIDENT WHICH KILLED A 70 YEAR OLD BICYCLIST." App. 9. 8 Robert Lidster, respondent, toward checkpoint. he approached van officers. directed side street another tried 9 lawfulness much challenge. But reached opposite conclusion. 319 3d 825, 747 (2001). agreed court. It (by vote 3) our decision 32 (2000), find 855 (2002). Because lower have different conclusions matter, we granted certiorari. See Burns Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 541 872, cert. denied, 534 1043 (2001) (finding similar constitutional). now reverse Court's determination. II 11 basically governs do agree. involved vehicles look those vehicles. After stopping examine (from outside vehicle) interior; walk drug-sniffing dog around exterior; and, if found sufficient (or other) crimes, occupants. 35. purposes, i.e., "to detect ordinary wrongdoing." Id., 41. noted made suspicion. And stop, absence circumstances. 12 differs significantly Edmond. their expected elicited apprehend, other individuals. 13 latter, refers subject matter "stops justified generalized ever-present possibility interrogation inspection may reveal crime." Ibid. (emphasis added). concede describes objective question "general interest control," specifies phrase refer every "law enforcement" objective. 44, n. 1. must read related language judicial opinions referring circumstances quite considering. 14 Neither believe, aside, us us. For thing, outcome. issue motorist. castle. See, 112-113 (1986); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 561 (1976). 444 (1990) (sobriety checkpoint); supra (Border Patrol checkpoint). unlike play. Like certain forms activity, say, crowd control safety, intrusive. brief. information. simply "responsible citizen[s]" "give whatever aid enforcement." Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 477-478 (1966). 16 Further, investigation crime. "[L]aw officers merely approaching asking willing answer questions, [or] putting person listen." Florida Royer, 460 491, 497 (1983). ALI, Model Code Pre-Arraignment Procedure § 110.1(1) (1975) ("[L]aw request furnish cooperate prevention crime"). That, because requests play vital investigatory work. Haynes Washington, 373 503, 515 (1963) ("[I]nterrogation witnesses undoubtedly essential tool effective enforcement"); Justice, Eyewitness Evidence: Guide Law Enforcement 14-15 (Oct. 1999) (instructing gather near scene). 17 present pedestrian, motorist, involved. difference determinations involuntary terms. 40. difference, however, all, said, Any accompanying delay should onerous than many typically accompany congestion. resulting questioning pedestrian. Given these considerations, anomalous (1) allow freely pedestrians (2) forbid motorists. 18 believe Cf. 2d, 9-10, 859-860 (expressing concern). namely, proliferation. Fell, Ferguson, Williams, Fields, Why Aren't Sobriety Checkpoints Widely Adopted Strategy States? 35 Accident Analysis Prevention 897 (Nov. 2003) checkpoints widely used due support). And, course, 19 These taken together, convince presumptive mean automatically, even presumptively, means judge basis 51 (1979), 450-455 (balancing factors determining reasonableness stop); 556-564 (same). III 20 consider mentioned, view, been fully Brief Petitioner 14-18; Respondent 17-27. 21 grave. death. No denies police's time. perpetrator specific known sort. 22 grave degree. appropriately tailored fit needs. took place accident, drivers, whom might vicinity occurred. 28-29 (describing belief routinely leaving work shifts nearby industrial complexes something relevant). 23 very minutes most. Contact lasted 547 (upholding three-to-five minutes); 448 delays 25 seconds). consisted distribution 546 inquiry motorists' citizenship immigration status); 447 examination drivers signs intoxication). alarm. systematically. 558; 452-453. manner while during 24 reasons conclude judgment 26 Reversed. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Ohio et al. Jim Petro, Ohio, Douglas R. Cole, Solicitor, Maier, J. Spagnoletti, Corporation Counsel District Columbia, respective jurisdictions William H. Pryor, Jr., Alabama, Terry Goddard M. Jane Brady Delaware, Steve Carter Indiana, Thomas Miller Iowa, G. Steven Rowe Maine, J Joseph Curran, Maryland, Mike Hatch Minnesota, McGrath Montana, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Peter Heed Hampshire, W. Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Michael Fisher Pennsylvania, Henry Dargan McMaster South Carolina, Lawrence Long Dakota, Greg Abbott Mark L. Shurtleff Utah, Sorrell Vermont, Jerry W Kilgore Virginia, Iver Stridiron Virgin Islands; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson; Association Chiefs James Sotos. amici affirmance National Defense Lawyers Lustberg, Joshua Dratel, Shapiro, Harvey Grossman; College DUI Barry T. Simons Troy McKinney. 27 GINSBURG join, part. 28 There valid distinction between seizing she who earlier. therefore join explaining why controlling However, discussed Part closer wise remand address first instance. 29 contrast pedestrians, free keep walking encounter handing flyers seeking confront roadblock remain long choose detain them. Such relatively innocuous some, annoying others several lengthened example, surge factory end shift. Still unpublicized midnight Saturday somewhat alarming. 30 equation, random sample yield useful occurred speculative best. To sure, entirely random: record reveals knew victim finished Post Office shortly fatal hoped employees park schedules thus, route week. plausible theory, confirm businesses shift changes Saturdays, than, placing employees' cars. 31 short, multifactor prescribed 47 facts Appellate Lombard per se unconstitutional neither attempted test. "We decide instance issues resolved below." Pierce County Guillen, 537 129, 148, (2003). especially reluctant abandon review requires analysis conditions practices familiar judges scene. undertake initial resolves opinion. extent, respectfully dissent.

Category: 0