city of edmond municipal court

THE STATE COURT SYSTEM ON A COUNTY - WIDE BASIS AND TO SUBURBAN CITIES WITHIN MIDWEST CITY MUNICIPAL COURTS, POPULATION 57, 200 ; EDMOND MUNICIPAL. Get directions, reviews and information for Edmond Municipal Court in Edmond, OK. edmond municipal court records.

Thematic video




on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit

[November 28, 2000]

 Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

 In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez&nbhyph;Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976), we held that first south financial credit union careers, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. We now consider the constitutionality of a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.


 In August td bank open saturday near me, the city of Indianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints on Indianapolis roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. The city conducted six such roadblocks between August and November that year, stopping 1,161 vehicles and arresting 104 motorists. Fifty-five arrests were for drug-related crimes, while 49 were for offenses unrelated to drugs. Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F. 3d 659, 661 (CA7 1999). The overall “hit rate” of the program was thus approximately nine percent.

 The parties stipulated to the facts concerning the operation of the checkpoints by the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) for purposes of the preliminary injunction proceedings instituted below. At each checkpoint location, the police stop a predetermined number of vehicles. Approximately 30 officers are stationed at the checkpoint. Pursuant to written directives issued by the chief of police, at least one officer approaches the vehicle, advises the driver that he or she is being stopped briefly at a drug checkpoint, and asks the driver to produce a license and registration. The officer also looks for signs of impairment and conducts an open-view examination of the vehicle from the outside. A narcotics-detection dog walks around the outside of each stopped vehicle.

 The directives instruct the officers that they may conduct a search only by consent or based on the appropriate quantum of particularized suspicion. The officers must conduct each stop in the same manner until particularized suspicion develops, and the officers have no discretion to stop any vehicle out of sequence. The city agreed in the stipulation to operate the checkpoints in such a way as to ensure that the total duration of each stop, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, would be five minutes or less.

 The affidavit of Indianapolis Police Sergeant Marshall DePew, although it is technically outside the parties’ stipulation, provides further insight concerning the operation of the checkpoints. According to Sergeant DePew, checkpoint locations are selected weeks in advance based on such considerations as area crime statistics and traffic flow. The checkpoints are generally operated during daylight hours and are identified with lighted signs reading, “NARCOTICS CHECKPOINT ___ MILE AHEAD, NARCOTICS K–9 IN USE, BE PREPARED TO STOP.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a. Once a group of cars has been stopped, other traffic proceeds without interruption until all the stopped cars have been processed or diverted for further processing. Sergeant DePew also stated that the average stop for a vehicle not subject to further processing lasts two to three minutes or less.

 Respondents James Edmond and Joell Palmer were each stopped at a narcotics checkpoint in late September 1998. Respondents then filed a lawsuit on behalf of city of edmond municipal court and the class of all motorists who had been stopped or were subject to being stopped in the future at the Indianapolis drug checkpoints. Respondents claimed that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the search and seizure provision of the Indiana Constitution. Respondents requested declaratory and injunctive relief for the class, as well as damages and attorney’s fees for themselves.

 Respondents then moved for a preliminary injunction. Although respondents alleged that the officers who stopped them did not follow the written directives, they agreed to the stipulation concerning the operation of the checkpoints for purposes of the preliminary injunction proceedings. The parties also stipulated to certification of the plaintiff class. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed to class certification and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the checkpoint program did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Edmond v. Goldsmith, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (1998). A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened the Fourth Amendment. 183 F. 3d 659 (1999). The panel denied rehearing. We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 1153 (2000), and now affirm.


 The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller, 520 U. S. 305, 308 (1997). While such suspicion is not an “irreducible” component of reasonableness, Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 561, we have recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply. For example, we have upheld certain regimes of suspicionless searches where the program was designed to serve “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” See, e.g., Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 (1995) (random drug testing of student-athletes); Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656 (1989) (drug tests for United States Customs Service employees seeking transfer or promotion to certain positions); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602 (1989) (drug and alcohol tests for railway employees involved in train accidents or found to be in violation of particular safety regulations). We have also allowed searches for certain administrative purposes without particularized suspicion of misconduct, provided that those searches are appropriately limited. See, e.g., New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 702–704 (1987) (warrantless administrative inspection of premises of “closely regulated” business); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 507–509, 511–512 (1978) (administrative inspection of fire-damaged premises to determine cause of blaze); Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 534–539 (1967) (administrative inspection to ensure compliance with city housing code).

 We have also upheld brief, suspicionless seizures of motorists at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990). In addition, in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 663 (1979), we suggested that a similar type of roadblock with the purpose of verifying drivers’ licenses and vehicle registrations would be permissible. In none of these cases, however, did we indicate approval premier community bank online banking a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.

 In Martinez-Fuerte, we entertained Fourth Amendment challenges to stops at two permanent immigration checkpoints located on major United States highways less than 100 miles from the Mexican border. We noted at the outset the particular context in which the constitutional question arose, describing in some detail the “formidable law enforcement problems” posed by the northbound tide of illegal entrants into the United States. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 551–554. These problems had also been the focus of several earlier cases addressing the constitutionality of other Border Patrol traffic-checking operations. See United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975); Almeida&nbhyph;Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973). In Martinez-Fuerte, we found that the balance tipped in favor of the Government’s interests in policing the Nation’s borders. 428 U. S., at 561–564. In so finding, we emphasized the difficulty of effectively containing illegal immigration at the border itself. Id., at 556. We also stressed the impracticality of the particularized study of a given car to discern whether it was transporting illegal aliens, as well as the relatively modest degree of intrusion entailed by the stops. Id., at 556–564.

 Our subsequent cases have confirmed that considerations specifically related to the need to police the border were a significant factor in our Martinez-Fuerte decision. For example, in United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U. S. 531, 538 (1985), we counted Martinez-Fuerte as one of a number of Fourth Amendment cases that “reflect longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border.” Although the stops in Martinez-Fuerte did not occur at the border itself, the checkpoints were located near the border and served a border control function made necessary by the difficulty of guarding the border’s entire length. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556.

 In Sitz, we evaluated the constitutionality of a Michigan highway sobriety checkpoint program. The Sitz checkpoint involved brief suspicionless stops of motorists so that police officers could detect signs of intoxication and remove impaired drivers from the road. 496 U. S., at 447–448. Motorists who exhibited signs of intoxication were diverted for a license and registration check and, if warranted, further sobriety tests. Id., at 447. This checkpoint program was clearly aimed at city of edmond municipal court the immediate hazard posed by the presence of drunk drivers on the highways, and there was an obvious connection between the imperative of highway safety and the law enforcement practice at issue. The gravity of the drunk driving problem and the magnitude of the State’s interest in getting drunk drivers off the road weighed heavily in our determination that the program was constitutional. See id., at 451.

 In Prouse, we invalidated a discretionary, suspicionless stop for a spot check of a motorist’s driver’s license and vehicle registration. The officer’s conduct in that case was unconstitutional primarily on account of his exercise of “standardless and unconstrained discretion.” 440 U. S., at 661. We nonetheless acknowledged the States’ “vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed.” Id., at 658. Accordingly, we suggested that “[q]uestioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops” would be a lawful means of serving this interest in highway safety. Id., at 663.

 We further indicated in Prouse that we considered the purposes of such a hypothetical roadblock to be distinct from a general purpose of investigating crime. The State proffered the additional interests of “the apprehension of stolen motor vehicles and of drivers under the tarrant county college logo of alcohol or narcotics” in its effort to justify the discretionary spot check. Id., at 659, n. 18. We attributed the entirety of the latter interest to the State’s interest in roadway safety. Ibid. We also noted that the interest in apprehending stolen vehicles may be partly subsumed by the interest in roadway safety. Ibid. We observed, however, that “[t]he remaining governmental interest in controlling automobile thefts is not distinguishable from the general interest in crime control.” Ibid. Not only does the common thread of highway safety thus run through Sitz and Prouse, but Prouse itself reveals a difference in the Fourth Amendment significance of highway safety interests and the general interest in crime control.


 It is well established that a vehicle stop at a highway checkpoint effectuates a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Sitz, supra, at 450. The fact that officers walk a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior of each car at the Indianapolis checkpoints does not transform the seizure into a search. See United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 707 (1983). Just as in Place, an exterior sniff of an automobile does not require entry into the car and is not designed to disclose any information other than the liberty mutual commercial login or absence of narcotics. See ibid. Like the dog sniff in Place, a sniff by a dog that simply walks around a car is “much less intrusive than a typical search.” Ibid. Cf. United States v. Turpin, 920 F. 2d 1377, 1385 (CA8 1990). Rather, what principally distinguishes these checkpoints from those we have previously approved is their primary purpose.

 As petitioners concede, the Indianapolis checkpoint program unquestionably has the primary purpose of interdicting illegal narcotics. In their stipulation of facts, the parties repeatedly refer to the checkpoints as “drug checkpoints” and describe them as “being operated by the City of Indianapolis in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs in Indianapolis.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 51a–52a. In addition, the first document attached to the parties’ stipulation is entitled “DRUG CHECKPOINT CONTACT OFFICER DIRECTIVES BY ORDER OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.” Id., at 53a. These city of edmond municipal court instruct officers to “[a]dvise the citizen that they are being stopped briefly at a drug checkpoint.” Ibid. The second document attached to the stipulation is entitled “1998 Drug Road Blocks” and contains a statistical breakdown of information relating to the checkpoints conducted. Id., at 55a. Further, according to Sergeant DePew, the checkpoints are identified with lighted signs reading, “NARCOTICS CHECKPOINT ___ MILE AHEAD, NARCOTICS K–9 IN USE, BE PREPARED TO STOP.” Id., at 57a. Finally, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals recognized that the primary purpose of the roadblocks is the interdiction of narcotics. 38 F. Supp. 2d, at 1026 (noting that both parties “stress the primary purpose of the roadblocks as the interdiction of narcotics” and that “[t]he IPD has made it clear that the purpose for its checkpoints is to interdict narcotics traffic”); 183 F. 3d, at 665 (observing that “the Bremen ohio concedes that its proximate goal is to catch drug offenders”).

 We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Rather, our checkpoint cases have recognized only limited exceptions to the general rule that a seizure must be accompanied by some measure of individualized suspicion. We suggested in Prouse that we would not credit the “general interest in crime control” as justification for a regime of suspicionless stops. 440 U. S., at 659, n. 18. Consistent with this suggestion, each of the checkpoint programs that we have approved was designed primarily to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint program is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, the program contravenes the Fourth Amendment.

 Petitioners propose several ways in which the narcotics-detection purpose of the instant checkpoint program may instead resemble the primary purposes of the checkpoints in Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte. Petitioners state that the checkpoints in those cases had the same ultimate purpose of arresting those suspected of committing crimes. Brief for Petitioners 22. Securing the border and apprehending drunk drivers are, of course, law enforcement activities, and law enforcement officers employ arrests and criminal prosecutions in pursuit of these goals. See Sitz, 496 U. S., at 447, 450; Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 545–550. If we were to rest the case at this high level of generality, there would be little check on the ability of the authorities to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. Without drawing the line at roadblocks designed primarily to serve the general interest in crime control, the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life.

 Petitioners also emphasize the severe and intractable nature of the drug problem as justification for the checkpoint program. Brief for Petitioners 14–17, 31. There is no doubt that traffic in illegal narcotics creates social harms of the first magnitude. Cf. Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 668. The law enforcement problems that the drug trade creates likewise remain daunting and complex, particularly in light of the myriad forms of spin-off crime that it spawns. Cf. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U. S., at 538. The same can be said of various other illegal activities, if only to a lesser degree. But the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, we must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. We are particularly reluctant to recognize exceptions to the general rule of individualized suspicion where governmental authorities primarily pursue their general crime control ends.

 Nor can the narcotics-interdiction purpose of the checkpoints be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to that present in Sitz. The detection and punishment of almost any criminal offense serves broadly the safety of the community, and our streets would no doubt be safer but for the scourge of illegal drugs. Only with respect to a smaller class of offenses, however, is society confronted with the type of immediate, vehicle-bound threat to life and limb that the sobriety checkpoint in Sitz was designed to eliminate.

 Petitioners also liken the anticontraband agenda of the Indianapolis checkpoints to the antismuggling purpose of the checkpoints in Martinez-Fuerte. Brief city of edmond municipal court Petitioners 15–16. Petitioners cite this Court’s conclusion in Martinez-Fuerte that the flow of traffic was too heavy to permit “particularized study of a given car that would enable it to be identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens,” Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 557, and claim that this logic has even more force here. The problem with this argument is that the same logic prevails any time a vehicle is employed to conceal contraband or other evidence of a crime. This type of connection to the roadway is very different from the close connection to roadway safety that was present in Sitz and Prouse. Further, the Indianapolis checkpoints are far removed from the border context that was crucial in Martinez-Fuerte. While the difficulty of examining each passing car was an important factor in validating the law enforcement technique employed in Martinez-Fuerte, this factor alone cannot justify a regime of suspicionless searches or seizures. Rather, we must look more closely at the nature of the public interests that such a regime is designed principally to serve.

 The primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoints is in the end to advance “the general interest in crime control,” Prouse, 440 U. S., at 659, n. 18. We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.

 Of course, there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control. For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. See 183 F. 3d, at 662–663. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction. While we do not limit the purposes that may justify a checkpoint program to any rigid set of categories, we decline to approve a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.1

 Petitioners argue that our prior cases preclude an inquiry into the purposes of the checkpoint program. peoples trust company enosburg falls vt For example, they cite Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806 (1996), and Bond v. United States, 529 U. S. 334 (2000), to support the proposition that “where the government articulates and pursues a legitimate interest for a suspicionless stop, courts should not look behind that interest to determine whether the government’s ‘primary purpose’ is valid.” Brief for Petitioners 34; see also id., at 9. These cases, however, do not control the instant situation.

 In Whren, we held that an individual officer’s subjective intentions are irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment validity of a traffic stop that is justified objectively by probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. 517 U. S., at 810–813. We observed that our prior cases “foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved.” Id., at 813. In so holding, we expressly distinguished cases where we had addressed the validity of searches conducted in the absence of probable cause. See id., at 811–812 (distinguishing Florida v. Wells, 495 U. S. 1, 4 (1990) (stating that “an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence”), Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U. S. 367, 372 (1987) (suggesting that the absence of bad faith and the lack of a purely investigative purpose were relevant to the validity of an inventory search), and Burger, 482 U. S., at 716–717, n. 27 (observing that a valid administrative inspection conducted with neither a warrant nor probable cause did not appear to be a pretext for gathering evidence of violations of the penal laws)).

Whren therefore reinforces the principle that, while “[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis,” 517 U. S., at 813, programmatic purposes may be relevant to the validity of Fourth Amendment intrusions undertaken pursuant to a general scheme without individualized suspicion. Accordingly, Whren does not preclude an inquiry into programmatic purpose in such contexts. Cf. Chandler v. Miller, 520 U. S. 305 (1997); Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656 (1989); Burger, supra; Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499 (1978); Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523 (1967). It likewise does not preclude an inquiry into programmatic purpose here.

 Last Term in Bond, we addressed the question whether a law enforcement officer violated a reasonable expectation of privacy in conducting a tactile examination of carry-on luggage in the overhead compartment of a bus. In doing so, we simply noted that the principle of Whren rendered the subjective intent of an officer irrelevant to this analysis. 529 U. S., at 338, n. 2. While, as petitioners correctly observe, city of edmond municipal court analytical rubric of Bond was not “ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis,” Whren, supra, at 813, nothing in Bond suggests that we would extend the principle of Whren to all situations where individualized suspicion was lacking. Rather, subjective intent was irrelevant in Bond because the inquiry that our precedents required focused on city of edmond municipal court objective effects of the actions of an individual officer. By contrast, our cases dealing with intrusions that occur pursuant to a general scheme absent individualized suspicion have often required an inquiry into purpose at the programmatic level.

 Petitioners argue that the Indianapolis checkpoint program is justified by its lawful secondary purposes of keeping impaired motorists off the road and verifying licenses and registrations. Brief for Petitioners 31–34. If this were the case, however, law enforcement authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they also restaurants near td banknorth garden a license or sobriety check. For this reason, we examine the available evidence to determine the primary purpose of the checkpoint program. While we recognize the challenges inherent in a purpose inquiry, courts routinely engage in this enterprise in many areas of constitutional jurisprudence as a means of sifting abusive governmental conduct from that which is lawful. Cf. 183 F. 3d, at 665. As a result, a program driven by an impermissible purpose may be proscribed while a program impelled by licit purposes is permitted, even though the challenged conduct may be outwardly similar. While reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is predominantly an objective inquiry, our special needs and administrative search cases demonstrate that purpose is often relevant when suspicionless intrusions pursuant to a general scheme are at issue.2

 It goes without saying that our holding today does nothing what is the per capita income of costa rica alter the constitutional status of the sobriety and border checkpoints that we approved in Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, or of the type of traffic checkpoint that we suggested would be lawful in Prouse. The constitutionality of such checkpoint programs still depends on a balancing of the competing interests at stake and the effectiveness of baptist health hospital fort smith arkansas program. See Sitz, 496 U. S., at 450–455; Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 556–564. When law enforcement authorities pursue primarily general crime control purposes at checkpoints such as here, however, stops can only be justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion.

 Our holding also does not affect the validity of city of edmond municipal court searches or searches at places like airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute. Nor does our opinion speak to other intrusions aimed primarily at purposes beyond the general interest in crime control. Our holding also does not impair the ability of police officers america ferrera twitter act appropriately upon information that they properly learn during a checkpoint stop justified by a lawful primary purpose, even where such action may result in the arrest of a motorist for an offense unrelated to that purpose. Finally, we caution that the purpose inquiry in this context is to be conducted only at the programmatic level and is not an invitation to probe the minds of individual officers acting at the scene. Cf. Whren, supra.

 Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly affirmed.

It is so ordered.


Jerry Dean Ray, an Individual, Plaintiff-appellee, v. the City of Edmond, a Municipal Corporation, and Officerdavid Wilson, Officer Stan Suggs, Sergeant T. Huey, Officermike Wooldridge, Individuals, Together with Other Unknownpolice Officers of the City of Edmond, Defendants-appellants, 662 F.2d 679 (10th Cir. 1981)

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The City of Edmond, Oklahoma, brings this appeal from a decision of the district court awarding judgment on a jury verdict which found the City liable to Jerry Dean Ray for nominal and punitive damages as the result of an arrest effected by officers of the City's police department.

Ray brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charging a violation of his civil rights through the use of excessive force and of unnecessary restraints during his detention. He also alleged that he was denied access to the telephone and consequently to bail for an unreasonable period of time. He sought actual, nominal, and punitive damages, naming the City and four of its officers as defendants.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding in nominal damages $25,000 against the city and $50 against each of the named police officers, and in punitive damages $125,000 against the city, $100 against two of the police officers and $250 against the remaining two officers. Following defense motions for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the district court granted the motion for a new trial unless the plaintiff agreed to remit all nominal damages awarded save one dollar per defendant. The plaintiff agreed to this remittitur. Plaintiff then moved for an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party in a civil rights action. After a hearing the court awarded $52,464 in attorney's fees.

The City appeals the award of punitive damages. Under the authority of City of Newport v. Fact Concerts Inc., --- U.S. ---- 101 S. Ct. 2748, 69 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981), we are compelled to reverse summarily the judgment entered by the district court. Therein the Supreme Court stated:

(i)n sum, we find that considerations of history and policy do not support exposing a municipality to punitive damages for the bad faith actions of its officials. Because absolute immunity from such damages obtained at common law and was undisturbed by the 42d Congress, and because that immunity is compatible with both the purposes of § 1983 and general principles of public policy, we hold that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under at&t call protect U.S.C. § 1983. City of Newport, --- U.S. at ---- 101 S. Ct. at 2762.

We thus overrule any suggestion to the contrary in our earlier opinions. See, e. g., Simineo v. School District No. 16, Park City, Wyoming, 594 F.2d 1353 (10th Cir. 1979).

The City has also objected to the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the court. There are a number of considerations which the court may take into account when determining an award of attorney's fees, one of which is the amount of recovery. See, e. g., Gurule v. Wilson, 635 F.2d 782 (10th Cir. 1980); Love v. Mayor of Cheyenne, 620 F.2d 235 (10th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). Because the award in this case will necessarily be revised in light of City of Newport, supra, the district court may wish to reconsider the amount of attorney's fees as well.

The judgment of the district court is vacated; this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Edmond Oklahoma DUI And Criminal Defense Attorney

The Urbanic Law Firm, PLLC
1141 N Robinson Avenue, Suite 101
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Tel: (405) 633-3420

Click this link to see our office location. Maps And Directions

The Urbanic Law Firm is different from many other criminal defense law offices because we employ cutting-edge technology to serve our clients. We will carefully evaluate each piece of available evidence to get the best outcome possible for our clients. If you need a lawyer in the Oklahoma City area who will thoroughly review your case and give you the personalized attention you deserve then call The Urbanic Law Firm. While many offices are still dealing with paper folders, we are digital. No missing documents. No messy folders. Using cloud-based technology, we can work on your case from anywhere on the planet.

No Case Is Too Small Or Too Large!

We bring value to our clients by offering them high-quality representation at a reasonable price. The Urbanic Law Firm’s fees are not at the high end of the spectrum, but they are also not at the low end. Don’t let high-priced attorneys make you think that everyone who charges lower than them is lower quality. I have had very good outcomes for clients that have paid me much less than many other attorneys would have charged them. Liberty is important to us. People should not be imprisoned when they did nothing wrong, and the government should not get away with violating peoples’ liberty. Our role is to keep the government within its constitutional bounds and hold it to its burden.

We understand that the criminal process is very complicated and extremely stressful. In the long run, you can’t afford to settle for a bargain-bin attorney who promises a quick and easy resolution. The legal profession is just like any other: you get what you pay for. At the Urbanic Law Firm, we believe that a good defense is always individually tailored to the specific circumstances. Our approach to every case is different; we provide innovative solutions for your defense. We provide aggressive representation with a “never-back-down” demeanor regardless of the strategy employed. Although we will promise you nothing more than our absolute best effort, our best effort usually leads to excellent results.

Over The Last Few Months The Urbanic Law Firm Has Handled A Diverse Range Of DUI And Criminal Defense Cases In Edmond, Midwest City, Del City, Moore, Yukon And The Surrounding Areas.

Edmond is a city in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, United States, and a part of the Oklahoma City metropolitan area in the central woodforest bank routing number texas of the state. The city limits are located on the northern border of Oklahoma City. Two major highways connect Edmond to downtown Oklahoma City: U.S. Route 77 (the Broadway Extension), which runs through the center of Edmond, and Interstate 35, which runs along the eastern side. Public transportation is provided by Citylink Edmond bus service. In 2011, Edmond was #1 on CNBC’s “10 Perfect Suburbs” list. Edmond was listed as one of the “Top 100 Places to Live in 2007” by Relocate America. Edmond was selected the most outstanding community in its class for five years in a row by the State Chamber of Commerce and State Industrial Development Department.

Edmond is located just north of Oklahoma City in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Arcadia Lake on the east side of the city is a fishing spot for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area and contains bluegill, channel catfish, blue catfish, and largemouth bass. Edmond has a humid subtropical climate with frequent variations in weather during part of the year and consistently hot summers. Prolonged and severe droughts often lead to wildfires and heavy rainfall often leads to flash flooding and flooding. Consistent winds, usually from the south or south-southeast during the summer, help temper the hotter weather. Consistent northerly winds during the winter can intensify cold periods. Bank of hawaii locations near me ice storms and snowstorms happen sporadically during the winter.

Important Links For The City Of Edmond:


Warr Acres Municipal Court and the Court Clerk's offices have temporarily been relocated to the new City Hall building at 4301 N Ann Arbor. 

The City of Warr Acres has provided an online method for people to pay their traffic tickets. Through an agreement with citizens may now pay their tickets online instead of mailing payment or coming in to the Court Clerk's icici direct com login page. Online payments are typically available 24hours a day, and may be made with most common credit card and some debit cards. Payments may also be made via telephone by at 1-800-444-1187.

Nathan Luke SimsMunicipal Judge
Beverly PalmerMunicipal Judge
Steven BarkerCity Prosecutor
Connie OxleyCourt Clerk
Jamie JonesAssistant Court Clerk

Because this may be the first time you have ever been required to appear in court, the following information as to procedure and your rights are given in this form. You have the right to be represented by a lawyer and may have your case continued to a later date in order to prepare a proper defense. You are not required to employ a lawyer in order to make a defense. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is on the city. You may testify in your own defense, or you may refuse to testify. You may call witnesses in your defense and; if necessary by giving their names and addresses to the clerk of the court to compel their attendance by subpoena. You are entitled to cross-examination any witnesses who may testify against you. You have the right to appeal to the District Court of this county if you are found guilty, after a plea of not guilty. When your name is called, you should step forward. The charge will be read to you and will be asked how you plead. You must either plead guilty, not guilty or Nolo Contendere. DO NOT hesitate to plead not guilty if you believe that is the case. Even if you plead guilty, you should feel free to explain to the court any unusual circumstances that you believe are in your favor. Pleas of guilty will be accepted as the docket is called and disposition is made. No person, regardless of his financial, social or political standing will be treated differently from any other person. To grant special privileges would be contrary to our American concept of equality. Under the laws of this state, if you are convicted, enter a plea of guilty or forfeit bond to a moving traffic violation, such must be reported to the state. However, the state does not receive convictions of 10 miles an hour over (regular speeding, in a school zone or excessive speeding). This gives a person a so-called break on their insurance. In traffic cases, the objective of this court is to reduce the number of crashes and injuries and to make our streets safer. Careful driving is our daily responsibility and it is hopeful that all can benefit from attendance in this court, regardless of the disposition made in any particular case.



Eric Bayat

Eric was raised in Edmond, Oklahoma. Eric spent his youth playing soccer at the club level and in high school where he won a state championship. After high school Eric attended the University of Central Oklahoma where he graduated with a Bachelors Degree in Geography. After being awarded a scholarship, Eric went on to attend Oklahoma City University School of Law to pursue his law degree. While in law school Eric interned at one of the biggest criminal defense law firms in the metro for two years. After finishing Law School and being awarded his Juris Doctorate Degree Eric passed the Bar exam and was licensed to practice law in Oklahoma. Eric spent the next two years working as an associate lawyer in one of the metro’s top criminal Defense Firms. It was there Eric developed and honed his skills in the court room and ability to practice law. After working on numerous jury trials and having numerous not guilty verdicts and dismissals he believed it was time for him to open his own firm. While working at a large firm Eric noticed that many clients’ needs often went unanswered. He noticed that large firms have so many clients that it becomes difficult to develop a strong relationship with a client which is an important part of being a lawyer and unfortunately those same clients’ cases usually “fall through the gaps”. Eric decided to focus his practice on building strong relationship with his clients. Eric limits his case load, so his Firm never falls into the position where his clients can “fall through the gap.” That’s why Eric gives his personal cell phone number to all of his client’s.

Eric continues to practice Law all over Oklahoma. He primarily practices in the Metro area. Eric is licensed to practice law anywhere in Oklahoma and in the Federal Western District of Oklahoma. Eric has handled cases in:

  • Oklahoma County
  • Canadian County
  • Logan County
  • Garfield County
  • Kingfisher County
  • Cleveland County
  • Alfalfa County
  • Grady County
  • Jackson County
  • Caddo County
  • Greer County
  • Custer County
  • Kiowa County
  • McClain County
  • Carter County
  • Garvin County
  • Seminole County
  • Lincoln County
  • Woods County
  • Pottawatomie County
  • Sequoyah County
  • Pittsburgh County
  • Payne County
  • Love County
  • Coal County

Eric has handled numerous Municipal cases in such Courts as:

  • Edmond Municipal Court
  • Oklahoma City Municipal Court
  • Bethany Municipal Court
  • Choctaw Municipal Court
  • Warr Acres Municipal Court
  • Valley Brook Municipal Court
  • Yukon Municipal Court
  • Mustang Municipal Court
  • Forest Investigation discovery full episodes free online Municipal Court
  • Moore Municipal Court.

Edmond Municipal Court - Ed… Scholarship

Top Scholarships For Gifted Students Worldwide

Prestigious scholarships are known to be the best offered but are very competitive. These are generous international scholarships and are offered to city of edmond municipal court national and international students. A student who achieves top scholarship is considered with excellence. Most of these scholarships require colleges or schools to nominate their students who are special or have scored remarkably. The application sent directly by the students are not accepted by the authorities who grant such scholarships. The goal of top scholarships is to provide the best study abroad to the students. In this article, you will find some of the top scholarships granted to gifted students worldwide. Jack Kent Cooke Foundation College Scholarship Program This international scholarship is one ofthe topmost undergraduate scholarships offered to high school senior students seeking financial aid and who want to get into renowned colleges and universities. This scholarship is designed for special students, and more than 40 scholars are accepted each year. These scholars receive multiple benefits like college planning support, $40,000 per year, various opportunities to interact with the Cooke scholar community, ongoing advising, etc. Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program This whole foods baton rouge la is governed by the state government in each state and is funded by the federal government. Each state students apply for this scholarship through a State education agency with their state residence, and it is offered for senior students. The deadline for this scholarship varies with each state. Collegiate Inventors Competition This scholarship is for those special students who is graduated or under-graduate and are searching for innovations, new ideas, and processes? The students have to submit their ideas or innovations and should be reduced to patentable and practice. Also, it should not have been published or patented for more than a j crew comenity sign in before the date of submitting it in the competition. The student must also ensure that the invention has not been in public or launched as a commercial product. The selection is done based on the invention's value to the society concerning the environment, society and economy, and the originality. Moreover, the scope of use of the invention is also taken into consideration during the selection process. Coca-Cola Scholars Program Scholarship This national scholarship introduced by Coca-Cola is mainly offered to U.S. high school senior students who have scored at least a 3.0 GPA. Selection is made based on the excellence, co-curriculum activities, community service by the student, leadership, and character. It is a very competitive scholarship where more than 100,000 students submit their applications each year. Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship This international scholarship aims at providing opportunities to those students who were undermined and understated to study abroad and to expand/diversify the studies of the special student,co-curricular including community college students with high financial need, students with disabilities, students who come from ethnic backgrounds, engineering or science students or students of nontraditional age. It is established by International Academic Opportunity Act, 2000. This program motivates and encourages students, especially from Australia and outside of Western Europe, to select nontraditional abroad destinations to study. Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship It was established in honor of Senator Barry M. Goldwater by US Congress in 1986. More than 3000 scholarships are rewarded each year, and it covers many expenses of the student, including room, tuition, fees, books, and provides up to $7,500 each year. There is an advantage to this international scholarship where the students who receive this program in their junior year of what are the three key functions of the human skeleton can renew it. Institutions with four-year programs can nominate 4 students each year, either in their junior year or sophomores. Students who are currently in their second year of college and arvest mortgage login to transfer to an institution providing a four-year program can also apply for this scholarship. This program focuses on those special students who want to make a career in engineering, science, or maths. Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship (NOAA) It was established in honor of Senator Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina in 2005 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He encouraged the study of our atmosphere and ocean research during his career. This program aims at various fields like technology and education, oceanic science, atmospheric science, earth, environmental science, biology, agricultural and marine science, physical science, mathematics, behavioral and actuarial science, and much more. Rotary Foundation Ambassadorial Scholarship This international scholarship provides almost 1000 to 1,100 scholarships in a year to study abroad. The applicants for this scholarship must be those special students who have a Rotary Club in their country and can be applied by undergraduate or graduate students. Each application is made through the Rotary Club with its deadlines, and students must have completed at least two years of college to be able to apply for this program.

Read More

edmond police department

1,117 were here. Cities: Guthrie Jail Mugshots - Warr Acres Jail Mugshots - Coweta Jail Mugshots - Newcastle Jail Mugshots - Pryor Creek Jail Mugshots - The Village Jail Mugshots - Clinton Jail Mugshots - Poteau Jail Mugshots - Wagoner Jail Mugshots. The Edmond Police Department budget for FY 10/11, as adopted in June of 2010, is $18,133,241. The Edmond Sun, edmondsun.comBYLINE: Mark Schlachtenhaufen The Edmond SunLink to ArticleEdmond,OKEDMOND — Edmond officers are busier, leading to 1,272 more property items being submitted in 2010 over 2009, police said.Edmond Police Maj. Steve Thompson said the Police … Name Title Email Phone Younger, J.D. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law. 1,113 were here. Protests and community gatherings -- continue across our area. The amount of explosives allowed by the Department of Mines was decreased by the Edmond Police Department more than half for standard operating procedures at the range. Edmond. Police: Charges filed against teenager arrested for Oklahoma man’s murder. Runaway juvenile, 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, … I learned how a police department functions and all of the communication and teamwork it requires. This page is managed by the recruitment office. Jan. 11. 23 E 1st St. Edmond, OK 73034. Skip to Main Content Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about. The Edmond Police Department is committed to … For In Progress Emergencies CALL 911. The Police Department is responsible for enforcement of state and local laws in the City of Redmond. Edmonds Police Department. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Edmond Police Department locations in Edmond, OK. The Edmond Police Department phone number is 405-359-4420. Police arrest blotter. The Police Department provides Redmond citizens protection from criminal activity through identification and apprehension of offenders, detection of crime, and crime prevention programs. EDMOND — A community prayer gathering is set for 8 a.m. Thursday outside the Edmond Police Department, 100 E First St. Even though Edmond is one of the safest cities of our size in the country, we continually strive to find ways to provide new and more effective police service. Ronnie Ladd, a pastor at Our Lord's Community Church, 11400 N Portland Ave. Emily Ward, Edmond Police spokeswoman, said Ladd asked to hold a community prayer service outside the department's … See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for the best Police Departments in Edmond, OK. Edmonds Police Department is located at 250 5th Ave N, Edmonds, 98020 WA. Staff. Website. Phone: (405) 359-4420. Chief Joe Elam the training chief for Edmond's department, joined News 9 … Edmond Police Department, Government. Our Location The Edmond Police Department is located in the downtown area, at 100 E. First Street. The OU Athletic Department said that the department is … Edmond Police Jail Inmate Search & Locator. The Edmond Police Department covers roughly 130 square miles (209.21 km2). Norman Magazine . according to an arrest report from the University of Oklahoma Police Department. Culver City Will Resume Regular Parking Enforcement on March 15, 2021. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Edmond City Police Department locations in Edmond… Published on November 17, 2020. Aug. 31. For Non-Emergency police response or to file a police report CALL (425) 407-3999 Follow us on Twitter Like Us on Facebook EPD YouTube Benjamin C. Northcutt, 36, is charged in Oklahoma County District Court with grand larceny in the alleged theft of money from the Edmond Police Department on Aug. 11. The Chief of Police of the department is Bob Ricks. EDMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this questionnaire is where can you find uscis online account number assist you in determining if you meet the minimum qualifications and requirements set forth by the State of Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training and the Edmond Police Department. 100 E 1st St, Edmond, OK 73034. Edmond Police Department, Government. News Break provides latest and breaking news about #Edmond Police Department. Assisting in data entry. Tue, Jan 26, 2021. Also, CDS is controlled dangerous substance; APC is Actual Physical Control; DUI is driving under the influence.) As #NationalPoliceWeek wraps up we recognize Peace Officer’s Memori . al Day. The Edmond Police Department Traffic Division, in partnership with the Oklahoma Safety Council and the Edmond Municipal Court, teaches the “Alive At … The number of inhabitants is around 69782. Call Edmond Detectives at 405-359-4457 and reference Case #20-68210 To make every effort to help people stay home and slow the spread of COVID-19, the City of Culver City will continue relaxed parking enforcement through March 15, 2021 and will be subject to extensions as warranted by Public Health orders. Many Police Records are available to the public to search or use in background checks. Reports include arrest logs, mugshots, bookings and more. It has more than 137 officials and staff, covering a zone of 113 square miles (181.86 km2) serving a urban populace of more than 195092. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law. Edmond Police Department provides ink fingerprinting for the Oklahoma County's 40K residents. The Edmond Police Department is a law-enforcement agency that is comprised of criminal investigations, patrol and special services divisions. 1,120 were here. 405.359.4437 23 E 1st Street Edmond, OK 73034. Police Departments. The Edmond Police Department Traffic Division, in partnership with the Oklahoma Safety Council and the Edmond Municipal Court, teaches the “Alive At … The Edmond Fire Department is hiring and wants to help potential applicants learn a little more about the process. Police investigation reports. The Edmond Police Department is committed to … State prison lookups can vary depending on locale, and inmates can often be moved from one location to another within the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Applicant Requirements: Background check; Interview; Midwest City Police Department. City Of Edmond. Find 92 listings related to Edmond Police Department in Edmond on Latest: VIDEO: Intense moments between police, suspected car burglars caught on camera in Oklahoma See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Oklahoma City Police Department locations in Edmond… The Edmond Police Office has […] Officials with the Edmond Police Department said they have responded to multiple incidents this week involving fake IDs. This morning there was a prayer service in front of the Edmond Police Department -- with officers and the community. Log In. Mon, Sep 14, 2020. Edmond Fire, Deer Creek/Oak Cliff VFD's on the Right. Due to the number of agencies on the right side, Alpha Tags are displayed in your (compatible) Media Player for the right side only. Priority Channels: Edmond PD Dispatch and Edmond Fire, Oak Cliff/ Deer Creek Dispatch channels take priority over information and fire ground channels. Also, CDS is controlled dangerous substance; APC is Actual Physical Control; DUI is driving under the influence.) See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Bakersfield Police Department locations in Edmond, OK. 1,119 were here. Assisting in data entry. Reviews from Edmond Police Department employees about Edmond Police Department culture, salaries, benefits, work-life balance, management, job security, and more. A judge has ordered a former Edmond police officer to stand trial on a charge that he stole $8,000 from an city national bank online account locker. Its patrol division patrols the city, responds to calls for service and assists citizens throughout the city. Contact information. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for the best Police Departments in Edmond, OK. (The following arrest reports are provided by the Edmond Police Department. Incarceration can be brutal on families and friends as well as inmates. The Edmond Police Department is a law-enforcement agency that is comprised of criminal investigations, patrol and special services divisions. To connect with Edmond Police Department, Government, join Facebook today. Edmond Police Department Find your accident and request a copy of your accident report from Edmond Police Department. Edmond Fire, Deer Creek/Oak Cliff VFD's on the Right. Find Police Records, including: Edmond arrest records. Edmond police on left side. Edmonds Police Department is in the Police1 Law Enforcement Directory. Edmond man sues The Village Police Department after confrontation with police in which he committed no crime Video Alleged thief steals car from sheriff's office substation Phone: (405) 359-4420 Non - Emergency: 405-359-4338. EDMOND, Oklahoma. The Edmonds Police Department phone number is 425.771.0200. Mon, Sep 14, 2020. Due to the number of agencies on the right side, Alpha Tags are displayed in your (compatible) Media Player for the right side only. The Edmond Police Department will expand its body camera program to include all patrol officers after a new purchase approved Jan. 25, 2021. One of Edmond's finest is wrapping up nearly four decades city of edmond municipal court the job. (405) 359-4420. Find agency contact, demographics, type, population served and more. The event, called "Morning of Prayer," is being organized by the Rev. Sergeant Gerald Dixon started with the Edmond Police Department in 1988. In the … Edmonds Police Department. Best Cities for Jobs 2020 NEW! On Feb. 2, officers were called to … Edmond Police Department, Government is on Facebook. 1,119 were here. A motorcyclist was arrested after reports show he led police on a chase through Edmond that at times topped 100 mph. Edmond Police Department, Edmond, Oklahoma 73034. The Chief of Police of the department is Al Compaan. Police Departments Government Offices City, Village & Township Government. I learned how a police department functions and all of the communication and teamwork it requires. The Edmond Police Department maintains Police Records on their arrests, searches, investigations, and the actions of police officers. The Edmond Police Department is committed to … The Edmond Police Department is the Office answerable for law authorization inside the Edmond, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 2. Find 91 listings related to Bakersfield Police Department in Edmond on A former Edmond police city of edmond municipal court is accused of trying to bribe one of his former colleagues to help an airline pilot keep his license after he had been arrested on a drunken-driving complaint. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Edmond Police Department locations in Edmond, OK. News Break provides latest and breaking news about #Edmond Police Department.

Toast Girl Scout Cookie, Bird Pattern Template, Island Routes Sandals, Texas Special Election Results, Hong Kong Office Rental, Arizona State University Transfer Requirements, Python Closure Counter, Macro Level Orientation Definition, Negative Environmental Impact Of Working From Home, Golden Steer Chateaubriand, Orville Redenbacher Avocado Oil Popcorn Nutrition Facts,

city of edmond municipal court

1 Replies to “City of edmond municipal court”

  1. I've been with a credit union since February of 1990 and I will leave this earth with a being a member of a credit union.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *