Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Illinois v. Lidster

Ill. v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2004-01-13
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by conducting a checkpoint aimed at gathering information regarding an earlier crime
  • holding that a warrantless highway checkpoint to investigate fatal hit-and-run accident was valid where “stops interfered only minimally with liberty of the sort the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect”
  • holding that a checkpoint set up to ask passing motorists about a killing which occurred on the same street was reasonable
  • holding that Edmond did not govern “information-seeking” vehicle stops at a highway checkpoint set up to ask drivers for information as potential witnesses to a recent hit-and-run accident on the same road
  • holding that information-seeking checkpoint stops lasting “a very few minutes at most” were reasonable
  • ruling that a police checkpoint established for the purpose of stopping motorists for 10-15 seconds to distribute a flyer and “ask them for information about a recent hit-and-run accident” is a seizure
  • holding that searches or seizures designed to elicit information about a particular crime “in all likelihood committed by others” are constitutional, unlike those designed to determine whether the particular individuals stopped are “committing a crime”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Illinois v. Lidster. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
370 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fourth Amendment A highway checkpoint whose primary purpose is to seek information from motorists about a specific crime committed by others is not governed by the rule of Indianapolis v. Edmond, which forbids, absent special circumstances, suspicionless checkpoint stops set up primarily for general crime-control purposes—that is, to detect evidence of ordinary wrongdoing by the motorists themselves. 540 U.S. at 423–424
  2. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment does not require courts to apply a rule of automatic unconstitutionality to brief, information-seeking highway stops merely because they lack individualized suspicion; the absence of individualized suspicion cannot by itself determine the constitutional outcome, as a motorist's car is not his castle and special law enforcement concerns may justify suspicionless highway stops. 540 U.S. at 424–425
  3. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fourth Amendment In assessing an information-seeking checkpoint stop, courts must consider that the context of seeking information from the public is one in which individualized suspicion has little role to play, since such a stop does not concern suspicion of the individual stopped; that these stops are likely brief, do not aim to elicit self-incriminating information, and often meet with positive citizen response; and that the law ordinarily permits police to seek the public's voluntary cooperation in a criminal investigation. 540 U.S. at 425–427
  4. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fourth Amendment An Edmond-type rule of automatic unconstitutionality is not needed to prevent an unreasonable proliferation of police checkpoints, because limited police resources and community hostility to traffic tieups are likely to inhibit proliferation, and the Fourth Amendment's ordinary requirement that a stop be reasonable in context remains an important limitation on checkpoint use. 540 U.S. at 426–427
  5. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fourth Amendment Where an Edmond-type rule of presumptive unconstitutionality does not apply, the reasonableness, and hence constitutionality, of a checkpoint stop must be judged on the individual circumstances by weighing the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. 540 U.S. at 427
  6. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fourth Amendment An information-seeking highway checkpoint stop is reasonable where police are investigating a specific known crime that resulted in a human death, the stops are tailored to that concern in timing and location, and the stops interfere only minimally with protected liberty—each involving a brief wait in line and contact with police for only a few seconds, applied systematically to all vehicles without discrimination or other unlawful conduct, and providing little objective or subjective reason for anxiety or alarm. 540 U.S. at 427–428
ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER,540 U.S. 419(2004)
124 S.Ct. 885
ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER.
No. 02-1060.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
Argued November 5, 2003.
Decided January 13, 2004.
Police set up a highway checkpoint to obtain information from motorists about a hit-and-run accident occurring about one week earlier at the same location and time of night. Officers stopped each vehicle for 10 to 15 seconds, asked the occupants whether they had seen anything happen there the previous weekend, and handed each driver a flyer describing and requesting information about the accident. As respondent Lidster approached, his minivan swerved, nearly hitting an officer. The officer smelled alcohol on Lidster's breath. Another officer administered a sobriety test and then arrested Lidster. He was convicted in Illinois state court of driving under the influence of alcohol. He challenged his arrest and conviction on the ground that the government obtained evidence through use of a checkpoint stop that violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court rejected that challenge, but the state appellate court reversed. The State Supreme Court agreed, holding that, in light ofIndianapolisv.Edmond,531 U. S. 32, the stop was unconstitutional.Held:The checkpoint stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 423-428.

(a)Edmonddoes not govern the outcome of this case. InEdmond, this Court held that, absent special circumstances, the Fourth Amendment forbids police to make stops without individualized suspicion at a checkpoint set up primarily for general "crime control" purposes.531 U. S., at 41,44. Specifically, the checkpoint inEdmondwas designed to ferret out drug crimes committed by the motorists themselves. Here, the stop's primary law enforcement purpose wasnotto determine whether a vehicle's occupants were committing a crime, but to ask the occupants, as members of the public, for help in providing information about a crime in all likelihood committed by others.Edmond'slanguage, as well as its context, makes clear that an information-seeking stop's constitutionality was not then before this Court. Pp. 423-424.

(b) Nor does the Fourth Amendment require courts to apply anEdmond-type rule of automatic unconstitutionality to such stops. The fact that they normally lack individualized suspicion cannot by itself determine the constitutional outcome, as the Fourth Amendment does not treat a motorist's car as his castle, see,e. g., New Yorkv.Class,475 U. S. 106,112-113, and special law enforcement concerns will sometimesPage 420justify highway stops without individualized suspicion, see,e. g., Michigan Dept. of State Policev.Sitz,496 U. S. 444. Moreover, the context here (seeking information from the public) is one in which, by definition, the concept of individualized suspicion has little role to play, and an information-seeking stop is not the kind of event that involves suspicion, or lack thereof, of the relevant individual. In addition, information-seeking highway stops are less likely to provoke anxiety or to prove intrusive, since they are likely brief, the questions asked are not designed to elicit self-incriminating information, and citizens will often react positively when police ask for help. The law also ordinarily permits police to seek the public's voluntary cooperation in a criminal investigation. That the importance of soliciting the public's assistance is offset to some degree by the need to stop a motorist — which amounts to a "seizure" in Fourth Amendment terms,e. g., Edmond,supra, at 40 — is not important enough to justify anEdmond-type rule here. Finally, such a rule is not needed to prevent an unreasonable proliferation of police checkpoints. Practical considerations of limited police resources and community hostility to traffic tieups seem likely to inhibit any such proliferation, and the Fourth Amendment's normal insistence that the stop be reasonable in context will still provide an important legal limitation on checkpoint use. Pp. 424-427.

(c) The checkpoint stop was constitutional. In judging its reasonableness, hence, its constitutionality, this Court looks to "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty."Brownv.Texas,443 U. S. 47,51. The relevant public concern was grave, as the police were investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death, and the stop advanced this concern to a significant degree given its timing and location. Most importantly, the stops interfered only minimally with liberty of the sort the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect. Viewed objectively, each stop required only a brief wait in line and contact with police for only a few seconds. Viewed subjectively, the systematic contact provided little reason for anxiety or alarm, and there is no allegation that the police acted in a discriminatory or otherwise unlawful manner. Pp. 427-428.202 Ill. 2d 1,779 N. E. 2d 855, reversed.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined, and in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined,post, p. 428.Page 421
Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General of Illinois, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs wereLisa Madigan, Attorney General, andLinda D.Woloshin, Lisa Anne Hoffman, andKaren Kaplan, Assistant Attorneys General.Patricia A. Millettargued the cause for the United States asamicus curiaeurging reversal. With her on the brief wereSolicitor General Olson, Acting AssistantAttorney General Wray, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, andPatty Merkamp Stemler.Donald John Ramsellargued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.fn*
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This Fourth Amendment case focuses upon a highway checkpoint where police stopped motorists to ask them for information about a recent hit-and-run accident. We hold that the police stops were reasonable, hence, constitutional.Page 422
I
The relevant background is as follows: On Saturday, August 23, 1997, just after midnight, an unknown motorist traveling eastbound on a highway in Lombard, Illinois, struck and killed a 70-year-old bicyclist. The motorist drove off without identifying himself. About one week later at about the same time of night and at about the same place, local police set up a highway checkpoint designed to obtain more information about the accident from the motoring public.

Police cars with flashing lights partially blocked the east-bound lanes of the highway. The blockage forced traffic to slow down, leading to lines of up to 15 cars in each lane. As each vehicle drew up to the checkpoint, an officer would stop it for 10 to 15 seconds, ask the occupants whether they had seen anything happen there the previous weekend, and hand each driver a flyer. The flyer said "ALERT . . .
FATAL HIT
RUN ACCIDENT
" and requested "ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING THE VEHICLE AND DRIVER INVOLVED IN THIS ACCIDENT WHICH KILLED A 70 YEAR OLD BICYCLIST." App. 9.

Robert Lidster, the respondent, drove a minivan toward the checkpoint. As he approached the checkpoint, his van swerved, nearly hitting one of the officers. The officer smelled alcohol on Lidster's breath. He directed Lidster to a side street where another officer administered a sobriety test and then arrested Lidster. Lidster was tried and convicted in Illinois state court of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Lidster challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and conviction on the ground that the government had obtained much of the relevant evidence through use of a checkpoint stop that violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court rejected that challenge. But an Illinois appellate court reached the opposite conclusion.319 Ill. App. 3d 825,747 N. E. 2d 419(2001). The Illinois Supreme Court agreedPage 423with the appellate court. It held (by a vote of 4 to 3) that our decision inIndianapolisv.Edmond,531 U. S. 32(2000), required it to find the stop unconstitutional.202 Ill. 2d 1,779 N. E. 2d 855(2002).

Because lower courts have reached different conclusions about this matter, we granted certiorari. SeeBurnsv.Commonwealth,261 Va. 307,541 S. E. 2d 872, cert. denied,534 U. S. 1043(2001) (finding similar checkpoint stop constitutional). We now reverse the Illinois Supreme Court's determination.
II
The Illinois Supreme Court basically held that our decision inEdmondgoverns the outcome of this case. We do not agree.Edmondinvolved a checkpoint at which police stopped vehicles to look for evidence of drug crimes committed by occupants of those vehicles. After stopping a vehicle at the checkpoint, police would examine (from outside the vehicle) the vehicle's interior; they would walk a drug-sniffing dog around the exterior; and, if they found sufficient evidence of drug (or other) crimes, they would arrest the vehicle's occupants.531 U. S., at 35. We found that police had set up this checkpoint primarily for general "crime control" purposes,i. e., "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing."Id., at 41. We noted that the stop was made without individualized suspicion. And we held that the Fourth Amendment forbids such a stop, in the absence of special circumstances.Id., at 44.

The checkpoint stop here differs significantly from that inEdmond.The stop's primary law enforcement purpose wasnotto determine whether a vehicle's occupants were committing a crime, but to ask vehicle occupants, as members of the public, for their help in providing information about a crime in all likelihood committed by others. The police expected the information elicited to help them apprehend, not the vehicle's occupants, but other individuals.Page 424Edmond'slanguage, as well as its context, makes clear that the constitutionality of this latter, information-seeking kind of stop was not then before the Court.Edmondrefers to the subject matter of its holding as "stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal thatany givenmotorist has committed some crime." Ibid, (emphasis added). We concede thatEdmonddescribes the law enforcement objective there in question as a "general interest in crime control," but it specifies that the phrase "general interest in crime control" does not refer to every "law enforcement" objective.Id., at 44, n. 1. We must read this and related general language inEdmondas we often read general language in judicial opinions — as referring in context to circumstances similar to the circumstances then before the Court and not referring to quite different circumstances that the Court was not then considering.

Neither do we believe,Edmondaside, that the Fourth Amendment would have us apply anEdmond-type rule of automatic unconstitutionality to brief, information-seeking highway stops of the kind now before us. For one thing, the fact that such stops normally lack individualized suspicion cannot by itself determine the constitutional outcome. As inEdmond, the stop here at issue involves a motorist. The Fourth Amendment does not treat a motorist's car as his castle. See,e. g., New Yorkv.Class,475 U. S. 106,112-113(1986);United Statesv.Martinez-Fuerte,428 U. S. 543,561(1976). And special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without individualized suspicion. SeeMichigan Dept.of State Policev.Sitz,496 U. S. 444(1990) (sobriety checkpoint);Martinez-Fuerte, supra(Border Patrol checkpoint). Moreover, unlikeEdmond, the context here (seeking information from the public) is one in which, by definition, the concept of individualized suspicion has little role to play. Like certain other forms of police activity, say,Page 425crowd control or public safety, an information-seeking stop is not the kind of event that involves suspicion, or lack of suspicion, of the relevant individual.

For another thing, information-seeking highway stops are less likely to provoke anxiety or to prove intrusive. The stops are likely brief. The police are not likely to ask questions designed to elicit self-incriminating information. And citizens will often react positively when police simply ask for their help as "responsible citizen[s]" to "give whatever information they may have to aid in law enforcement."Mirandav.Arizona,384 U. S. 436,477-478(1966).

Further, the law ordinarily permits police to seek the voluntary cooperation of members of the public in the investigation of a crime. "[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, [or] by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen."Floridav.Royer,460 U. S. 491,497(1983). See also ALI, Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § 110.1(1) (1975) ("[L]aw enforcement officer may . . . request any person to furnish information or otherwise cooperate in the investigation or prevention of crime"). That, in part, is because voluntary requests play a vital role in police investigatory work. See,e. g., Haynesv.Washington,373 U. S. 503,515(1963) ("[Interrogation of witnesses . . . is undoubtedly an essential tool in effective law enforcement"); U. S. Dept. of Justice, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement 14-15 (Oct. 1999) (instructing law enforcement to gather information from witnesses near the scene).

The importance of soliciting the public's assistance is offset to some degree by the need to stop a motorist to obtain that help — a need less likely present where a pedestrian, not a motorist, is involved. The difference is significant in light of our determinations that such an involuntary stop amountsPage 426to a "seizure" in Fourth Amendment terms.E. g.,Edmond,531 U. S., at 40. That difference, however, is not important enough to justify anEdmond-type rule here. After all, as we have said, the motorist stop will likely be brief. Any accompanying traffic delay should prove no more onerous than many that typically accompany normal traffic congestion. And the resulting voluntary questioning of a motorist is as likely to prove important for police investigation as is the questioning of a pedestrian. Given these considerations, it would seem anomalous were the law (1) ordinarily to allow police freely to seek the voluntary cooperation of pedestrians but (2) ordinarily to forbid police to seek similar voluntary cooperation from motorists.

Finally, we do not believe that anEdmond-type rule is needed to prevent an unreasonable proliferation of police checkpoints. Cf.202 Ill. 2d, at 9-10,779 N. E. 2d, at 859-860(expressing that concern). Practical considerations" namely, limited police resources and community hostility to related traffic tieups — seem likely to inhibit any such proliferation. See Fell, Ferguson, Williams, Fields, Why Aren't Sobriety Checkpoints Widely Adopted as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States? 35 Accident Analysis Prevention 897 (Nov. 2003) (finding that sobriety checkpoints are not more widely used due to the lack of police resources and the lack of community support). And, of course, the Fourth Amendment's normal insistence that the stop be reasonable in context will still provide an important legal limitation on police use of this kind of information-seeking checkpoint.

These considerations, taken together, convince us that anEdmond-type presumptive rule of unconstitutionality does not apply here. That does not mean the stop is automatically, or even presumptively, constitutional. It simply means that we must judge its reasonableness, hence, its constitutionality, on the basis of the individual circumstances. And as this Court said inBrownv.Texas,443 U. S. 47,51Page 427(1979), in judging reasonableness, we look to "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." See alsoSitz,496 U. S., at 450-455(balancing these factors in determining reasonableness of a checkpoint stop);Martinez-Fuerte,428 U. S., at 556-564(same).
III
We now consider the reasonableness of the checkpoint stop before us in light of the factors just mentioned, an issue that, in our view, has been fully argued here. See Brief for Petitioner 14-18; Brief for Respondent 17-27. We hold that the stop was constitutional.

The relevant public concern was grave. Police were investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death. No one denies the police's need to obtain more information at that time. And the stop's objective was to help find the perpetrator of a specific and known crime, not of unknown crimes of a general sort. Cf.Edmond, supra, at 44.

The stop advanced this grave public concern to a significant degree. The police appropriately tailored their check-point stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs. The stops took place about one week after the hit-and-run accident, on the same highway near the location of the accident, and at about the same time of night. And police used the stops to obtain information from drivers, some of whom might well have been in the vicinity of the crime at the time it occurred. See App. 28-29 (describing police belief that motorists routinely leaving work after night shifts at nearby industrial complexes might have seen something relevant).

Most importantly, the stops interfered only minimally with liberty of the sort the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect. Viewed objectively, each stop required only a brief wait in line — a very few minutes at most. Contact with the police lasted only a few seconds. Cf.Martinez-Fuerte,supra, at 547 (upholding stops of three-to-five minutes);Sitz, supra,Page 428at 448 (upholding delays of 25 seconds). Police contact consisted simply of a request for information and the distribution of a flyer. Cf.Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 546 (upholding inquiry as to motorists' citizenship and immigration status);Sitz, supra, at 447 (upholding examination of all drivers for signs of intoxication). Viewed subjectively, the contact provided little reason for anxiety or alarm. The police stopped all vehicles systematically. Cf.Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 558;Sitz, supra, at 452-453. And there is no allegation here that the police acted in a discriminatory or otherwise unlawful manner while questioning motorists during stops.

For these reasons we conclude that the checkpoint stop was constitutional.

The judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court isReversed.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
There is a valid and important distinction between seizing a person to determine whether she has committed a crime and seizing a person to ask whether she has any information about an unknown person who committed a crime a week earlier. I therefore join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion explaining why our decision inIndianapolisv.Edmond,531 U. S. 32(2000), is not controlling in this case. However, I find the issue discussed in Part III of the opinion closer than the Court does and believe it would be wise to remand the case to the Illinois state courts to address that issue in the first instance.

In contrast to pedestrians, who are free to keep walking when they encounter police officers handing out flyers or seeking information, motorists who confront a roadblock are required to stop, and to remain stopped for as long as the officers choose to detain them. Such a seizure may seemPage 429relatively innocuous to some, but annoying to others who are forced to wait for several minutes when the line of cars is lengthened — for example, by a surge of vehicles leaving a factory at the end of a shift. Still other drivers may find an unpublicized roadblock at midnight on a Saturday somewhat alarming.

On the other side of the equation, the likelihood that questioning a random sample of drivers will yield useful information about a hit-and-run accident that occurred a week earlier is speculative at best. To be sure, the sample in this case was not entirely random: The record reveals that the police knew that the victim had finished work at the Post Office shortly before the fatal accident, and hoped that other employees of the Post Office or the nearby industrial park might work on similar schedules and, thus, have been driving the same route at the same time the previous week. That is a plausible theory, but there is no evidence in the record that the police did anything to confirm that the nearby businesses in fact had shift changes at or near midnight on Saturdays, or that they had reason to believe that a roadblock would be more effective than, say, placing flyers on the employees' cars.

In short, the outcome of the multifactor test prescribed inBrownv.Texas,443 U. S. 47(1979), is by no means clear on the facts of this case. Because the Illinois Appellate Court and the State Supreme Court held that the Lombard road-block wasper seunconstitutional underIndianapolisv.Edmond, neither court attempted to apply theBrowntest. "We ordinarily do not decide in the first instance issues not resolved below."Pierce Countyv.Guillen,537 U. S. 129,148, n. 10 (2003). We should be especially reluctant to abandon our role as a court of review in a case in which the constitutional inquiry requires analysis of local conditions and practices more familiar to judges closer to the scene. I would therefore remand the case to the IllinoisPage 430courts to undertake the initial analysis of the issue that the Court resolves in Part III of its opinion. To that extent, I respectfully dissent.Page 431
  1. Briefs ofamid curiaeurging reversal were filed for the State of Ohio et al. byJim Petro, Attorney General of Ohio,Douglas R. Cole, State Solicitor, andRobert C. Maier, Assistant Solicitor,Robert J.Spagnoletti, Acting Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows:William H. Pry or, Jr., of Alabama,Terry Goddardof Arizona,M. JaneBradyof Delaware,Steve Carterof Indiana,Thomas J. Millerof Iowa,G. Steven Roweof Maine,J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland,MikeHatchof Minnesota,Mike McGrathof Montana,Brian Sandovalof Nevada,Peter Heedof New Hampshire,W. A. Drew Edmondsonof Oklahoma,HardyMyersof Oregon,D Michael Fisherof Pennsylvania,Henry Dargan McMasterof South Carolina,Lawrence E. Longof South Dakota,Greg Abbottof Texas,Mark L. Shurtleffof Utah,William H.Sorrellof Vermont,Jerry W Kilgoreof Virginia, andIver A. Stridironof the Virgin Islands; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation byKent S.ScheideggerandCharles L. Hobson;and for the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police et al. byJames G.Sotos.

    Briefs ofamici curiaeurging affirmance were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. byLawrence S. Lustberg, Joshua L. Dratel, Steven R.Shapiro, andHarvey Grossman;and for the National College for DUI Defense byBarry T. SimonsandW. Troy McKinney. ↩