October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1030
Can police stop drivers without suspicion to find drugs?
The city argues its checkpoints are legal safety tools. The driver argues they are illegal drug searches.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Falk argued the stops are criminal investigations of innocent people.
He stated the primary purpose is noncriminal investigation.
Ms. Millett argued the checkpoints are constitutional under prior rulings.
She cited cases involving alien smuggling and sobriety checks.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The city of Indianapolis runs roadblocks to catch drunk drivers and find drugs. The driver says these stops are illegal because they target innocent people without cause. The city says the stops are legal because they serve a safety purpose.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-17
What each side wants
The city wants the Court to approve its checkpoint program.
The driver wants the Court to ban these drug-focused stops.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-7
What each side says
The city argues its checkpoints are legal under prior safety rulings.
The driver argues these stops are criminal investigations without cause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-7
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the city's stops differ from prior approved cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-17
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of police power on public roads. It determines whether officers can stop drivers without suspicion to find drugs. The outcome shapes daily interactions between citizens and law enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-17
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 31-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 31-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.