To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Illinois v. Lidster

Citation. 540 U.S. 419, 124 S. Ct. 885, 157 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2004)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Police set up a highway checkpoint to ask motorists for information about a hit and run. Respondent was determined at the checkpoint to be driving under the influence.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Where a stop advances a grave public concern to a significant degree, and interferes only minimally with liberty the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect.


In response to the hit-and-run death of a bicyclist, police set up a checkpoint to ask occupants if they had any information about the incident, and handed each driver a flyer about the matter. Respondent Robert Lidster’s vehicle swerved as it approached the checkpoint. A roadside sobriety test determined that the respondent was driving under the influence of alcohol.


Whether a “highway checkpoint where police stopped motorists to ask them for information” about a criminal matter complied with the Fourth Amendment.


Yes. First, the Court distinguished this case from Edmond, noting that in this matter, the checkpoint “was not to determine whether a vehicle’s occupants were committing a crime but to ask vehicle occupants . . . for their help in providing information about a crime . . . committed by others.” The court dismissed the notion that “such stops normally lack individualized suspicion cannot by itself determine the constitutional outcome.” The court did “not believe that an Edmond-type rule is needed to prevent an unreasonable proliferation of police checkpoints.” On the merits of the case itself, the police were advancing a “grave” public concern with an “appropriately tailored . . . checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs.” Finally, “the stops interfered only minimally with liberty.”


The dissenting judges noted that “motorists who confront a roadblock are required to stop, and to remain stopped for as long as officers choose to detain them. Further, it was unlikely that questioning a “random sample of drivers” would gain any real answers.
Concurrence. Dissenting judges concurred that Edmond was not controlling.


A checkpoint’s “reasonableness, hence, its constitutionality, [must be judged] on the basis of individual circumstances.”

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following