Author Question: In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the Court held that drug interdiction checkpoints: a. ... (Read 214 times)

Chelseaamend · **on:** Aug 13, 2018

In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the Court held that drug interdiction checkpoints:

a. did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were a minor inconvenience.
b. did violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were a major inconvenience.
c. did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were indistinguishable from general crime control interests.
d. did violate the Fourth Amendment, because they were indistinguishable from general crime control interests.

Question 2

The reasonableness of roadblocks and checkpoints is determined by the following three-prong balancing test: the gravity of the public interest being served by the seizure; the effectiveness of the seizure in advancing the public interest; and:

a. the likelihood of reducing crime as a result of the roadblock or checkpoint.
b. the experience of the officers at the roadblock or checkpoint.
c. the cost of the roadblock or checkpoint.
d. the degree of intrusion upon individual liberty due to the roadblock or checkpoint.