I wrote a case brief for the case City of Indianapolis v Edmond. My instructor said that in my Rules of Law section, I need to "synchronize a rule and cite accordingly." I utilized 3 cases of reference from the opinion from the case and conceptually attributed the outcomes to all 3 cases as focusing on the word and conception of "suspicionless searches." Isn't that what synchronizing is?

This is what I wrote in my case brief:

Rules of Law:[AV1]

Focusing on the 4^th Amendment of the U.S Constitution, t'6he court compared the checkpoints conducted by the City of Indianapolis to Border Patrol, DUII, and Driver License/Licensing checkpoints.Review of United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976) reviewed border patrol checkpoints for the purpose of intercepting illegal aliens, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 reviewed police DUII check points, and Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979) which contemplated search and seizure during a traffic stop for equipment violations.The court concluded that historically it upheld "certain regimes of suspicionless searches where the program was designed to serve "special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement," "suspicionless seizures of motorists at a fixed border patrol checkpoint" and "a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road".City of Indianapolis v. Edmond 531 U.S. 32 at 37.The common element amongst them being the word suspicionless.The court noted that it had "never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing" meaning because the Indianapolis checkpoint resulted in arrests of "general criminal wrongdoing" and was not done for the stated purpose.

[AV1]Synthesize a rule and cite accordingly.