OnTheIssues.org
Home Issues Candidates Recent Grid Archive Senate VoteMatch_Quiz
 Notebooks:   |   Bill   Sponsorships   Policy   Reports   Memberships/   Affiliations   Group   Ratings   Court   Rulings   Congressional   Surveys 
       

Bill Sponsorships
Policy Reports
Memberships / Affiliations
Group Ratings
Court Rulings
Senate Surveys


Bill Sponsorships:
Congressional bills 2011-2012
Congressional bills 2009-2010
2008 Presidential Contenders' bills
Congressional bills 1998-2008
2010 Senate signature bills
2008 Senate signature bills
2008 Presidential signature bills
Pres. Barack Obama's Senate signature bills
V.P. Joe Biden's Senate signature bills
Rep. Ron Paul's House signature bills
Sen. John McCain's Senate signature bills
Sen. Hillary Clinton's Senate signature bills


Memberships:
Congressional memberships 2012
Congressional memberships 2001-2011
112th Congress Committees
Congressional Caucuses
Congressional Group Ratings


Surveys:
Surveys: Collection of all surveys in one summary.
2012 Project Vote Smart
2012 Christian Coalition voter guide
2010 Christian Coalition voter guide
2010 Faith2Action.org voter guide
2010 Project Vote Smart
Contract From America
Contract With America


Reports & Letters:
Governmental Reports
Resolutions
Resolutions 2011
Letters
Letters 2011
Supreme Court Rulings
Supreme Court 2011:


Grids:
2008 Presidential
2004 Presidential
2000 Presidential
2008 Issues
2004 Issues
2000 Issues


Senate Votes:
2008-2011
Through 2011
Through 2009
Through 2007
Through 2003
1994-1999


House Votes:
2008-2011
Through 2011
1994-2004
1999-2003


  

    This page contains Supreme Court rulings -- with summaries of the majority and minority conclusions.

99-1030 on Oct 3, 2000

Decided Nov 28, 2000
Case Ruling: CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMOND
Indianapolis operates vehicle checkpoints on its roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Mr. Edmond was stopped at such a checkpoint, and filed suit, claiming that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendmentís rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

Held:

(OíConnor, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, & Stevens)
We previously held that brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. We now consider [applying that to] illegal narcotics. Because the checkpoint programís primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.

Dissent:

(Rehnquist, joined by Scalia & Thomas)
The Stateís use of a drug-sniffing dog, according to the Courtís holding, annuls what is otherwise plainly constitutional under our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: brief, standardized, discretionless, roadblock seizures of automobiles, seizures which effectively serve a weighty state interest with only minimal intrusion on the privacy of their occupants. Because these seizures serve the Stateís accepted and significant interests of preventing drunken driving and checking for driverís licenses and vehicle registrations, and because there is nothing in the record to indicate that the addition of the dog sniff lengthens these otherwise legitimate seizures, I dissent.

Additional dissent:

(Thomas)
I am not convinced [the original drunk-driving & immigration roadblock cases] were correctly decided. I rather doubt that the Framers would have considered ďreasonableĒ a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing. But Mr. Edmond did not advocate the overruling [of the original cases, so I join in the dissent].


    Participating counts on VoteMatch question 19. Question 19: Never legalize marijuana Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
  • Topic: Drugs
  • Headline: No roadblocks with drug-sniffing dogs (Score: -1)
  • Headline 2: Roadblocks with drug-sniffing dogs are OK (Score: 2)
  • Headline 3: Treat drug roadblocks the same as drunk-driving roadblocks (Score: 1)

  • Key for participation codes:
  • Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
  • Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
  • Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
  • Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
  • Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.



Democrats participating in 99-1030

Stephen Breyer j1US Democratic Appointee to Supreme Court 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg j1US Democratic Appointee to Supreme Court 



Republicans participating in 99-1030

Anthony Kennedy j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 
Sandra Day O`Connor w1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2005) 
William Rehnquist w2dUS Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (until 2005) 
Antonin Scalia j2dUS Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 
David Souter j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2009) 
John Paul Stevens j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2010) 
Clarence Thomas w3dUS Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 



Independents participating in 99-1030



Total recorded by OnTheIssues:

Democrats: 2
Republicans: 7
Independents: 0


















Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages without written permission is prohibited.
Copyright © 1999-2012 OnTheIssues.org & the SpeakOut Foundation, all rights reserved.
OnTheIssues.org 1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail us at:submit at OnTheIssues.org
| Advertising information | About Us
  Newsletter     Signup  
Email:
  
Zip:
    
Or click for More Info.