Why is the case important?
A mother was taken into custody for violation of Texas’ strict seatbelt law. She subsequently sued for Fourth Amendment violations.
Facts of the case
Under Texas law, it is a misdemeanor, punishable only by a fine, either for a front-seat passenger in a car equipped with safety belts not to wear one or for the driver to fail to secure any small child riding in front. In 1997, Gail Atwater was driving her truck in Lago Vista. Neither of Atwater’s children, who were sitting in the front seat, was wearing seatbelts. Lago Vista policeman Bart Turek observed the violations and pulled Atwater over. Ultimately, Atwater was handcuffed, placed in jail, and released on bond. Atwater then filed suit alleging that Turek’s actions had violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. In granting the city summary judgment, the District Court ruled the claim meritless. In affirming, the en banc Court of Appeals held that the arrest was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes because no one disputed that Turek had probable cause to arrest Atwater, and there was no evidence the arrest was conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to Atwater’s privacy interests.
Whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
No. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent wanted a new rule one not necessarily requiring violent breach of the peace, but nonetheless forbidding custodial arrest, even upon probable cause, when conviction could not ultimately carry any jail time and when the government shows no compelling need for immediate detention. The court was unwilling to do this, noting complications arise the moment we begin to think about the possible applications of the several criteria the respondent proposes for drawing a line between minor crimes with limited arrest authority and others not so restricted. Citing several examples, the court concluded by noting that the respondent’s rule would place police in an almost impossible spot and guarantee increased litigation over many of the arrests that would occur. Given that it would cause more troubles than it would solve, the court refused to adopt the rule, and held arrests were permissible under all circumstances of criminal act
“The Court determined that the Fourth Amendment does not limit police officers’ authority to arrest without warrant for minor criminal offenses. In the case at bar, the respondent officer had probable cause to believe that petitioner arrestee had committed a crime in his presence
- Case Brief: 2001
- Petitioner: Atwater
- Respondent: City of Lago Vista
- Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Citation: 532 US 318 (2001)
Argued: Dec 4, 2000
Decided: Apr 24, 2001