Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

Home > Case Brief Bank > Criminal Law & Procedure > ..

Civil Procedure Case Briefs

Printer Friendly Page Send this brief to a friend

ATWATER v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA
121 S.Ct. 1536 (2001)
Author: Peter A. Burchett

Facts: Atwater, P, was driving her pickup truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her 3-year old son and 5-year-old daughter in the front seat. None of them was wearing a seatbelt. Respondent, a police officer, observed seatbelt violations and pulled P over. P told police officer she did not have driver’s license an insurance documentation because her purse had been stolen the day before. P arrested and booked, charged with driving without her seatbelt fastened, failing to secure her children in seatbelts, driving without a license, and failing to provide proof of insurance. P pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor seatbelt offenses and paid $50 fine; the other charges were dismissed.

Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine?

Holding: No. Judgment affirmed.

Procedure: Suit initially filed against the City of Lago Vista and Chief of Police. The City removed the suit to federal district court which ruled the Fourth Amendment claim “meritless” and granted the City’s summary judgment motion. The court of appeals affirmed.

Rule: The standard of probable cause “applies to all arrests, without the need to ‘balance’ the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations.” If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.

P’s Argument: Respondents had violated P’s Fourth Amendment “right to be free from unreasonable seizure,” and sought compensatory and punitive damages. Further, that “founding-era common-law rules” forbade peace officers to make warrantless misdemeanor arrests except in cases of “breach of the peace.”

D’s Argument: Cannot concluded that the Fourth Amendment, as originally understood, forbade peace officers to arrest without a warrant for misdemeanors not amounting to or involving breach of the peace. There is no indication either that such a claimed rule has ever become “woeven…into the fabric” of American law.

Holding: Niether the history of the framing era nor subsequent legal development indicates that the Fourth Amendment was originally understood, or has traditionally been read, to embrace P’s position. P has cited no particular evidence that those who framed and ratified the Fourth Amendment sought to limit peace officers’ warrantless misdemeanor arrest authority to instances of actual breach of the peace.

Dissent: Custodial arrests are not reasonable in every circumstance. Police officers should not have a constitutional carte blanche to arrest whenever there is probable cause to believe a fine-only misdemeanor has been committed – such would be irreconcilable with the Fourth Amendment’s command that seizures be reasonable.

BACK