-Caveat Lector- http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010424/10/news-scotus-arrest Court OKs Arrest for No Seat Belt Updated 10:41 AM ET April 24, 2001 By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Clarifying the extent of police power in roadside stops, the Supreme Court held that officers can arrest and handcuff people even for minor offenses punishable by a fine. The justices ruled against a driver who was arrested and handcuffed for failing to wear a seat belt. Such arrests do not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable search, the court declared Monday. In the 5-4 ruling, which could affect anyone who drives a car, the justices said such an arrest does not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures. Police generally can arrest anyone they see breaking the law, the court said as it barred a Texas woman from suing the officer who handcuffed her and took her to jail. The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures." A lower court had ruled that Gail Atwater could not sue over her arrest because the officer did not violate her constitutional rights. Atwater was driving her two children home from soccer practice in 1997 in Lago Vista, Texas, when she was stopped by a police officer who had noticed the three were not wearing seat belts. Texas law allows police to make arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding. The officer arrested Atwater, handcuffed her hands behind her back and took her to the city police station. A friend looked after her children and her pickup truck was towed away. Atwater's mug shot was taken and she was released after posting bond. She later pleaded no contest to the seat belt offense and paid the maximum $50 fine. Atwater and her husband, Michael Haas, sued the city and the police officer, saying the arrest violated her constitutional rights. The high court majority rejected her argument that police should not have arrested her for a crime that would carry no jail time. "The arrest and booking were inconvenient to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority. Souter was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented. A lower federal judge had thrown out Atwater's lawsuit. A three-judge appellate court reinstated it, but the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she could not sue. The appeals court said the arrest was reasonable because the officer had reason to believe Atwater violated the law and the arrest was not carried out in an "extraordinary manner." The states have widely varying policies on whether police can arrest people for minor offenses.. Some states allow officers to arrest people for offenses punishable only by a fine, while others prohibit it. Some states let officers arrest someone they witness committing a misdemeanor offense only if the offense is considered a breach of peace. During arguments at the Supreme Court last December, Atwater's lawyer said the Fourth Amendment restricts the use of arrest for minor offenses. The case would be different if someone were stopped for drunken or reckless driving, which could cause danger for others on the road if they were released, her lawyer said. O'Connor, writing for the minority, said Atwater's arrest was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It does not make sense for the majority to say both that Atwater's arrest served no state purpose and also to say that it passed constitutional muster, O'Connor wrote. "Because the court's position is inconsistent with the explicit guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, I dissent," she wrote. The city's lawyer had argued that police are allowed to make an arrest if they witness someone violating the law. Police often don't have enough information to know if someone's actions are a misdemeanor or felony, the lawyer said. The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. --- On the Net: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
