![]() |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER
United States Supreme Court No. 02-1060
ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: November 5, 2003
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argumentI. Edmond only prevented a checkpoint of potentially universal application.
II. The limited purpose and minimal intrusion of the informative checkpoint in this case distinguishes it from Edmond.
A. Intent
B. Less intrusive
III. This informational checkpoint was reasonable and therefore complied with the Fourth Amendment.
Conclusion