Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER

United States Supreme Court No. 02-1060

---

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: November 5, 2003

---

INTRODUCTION

Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Argument - Part I

I. 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

Part II B

B. Less intrusive

III. This informational checkpoint was reasonable and therefore complied with the Fourth Amendment.

Conclusion