Atwater v. City of Lago Vista:   
U.S. Supreme Court, 2001. 

Statement of the Case:

      Seatbelt law violator, Atwater, is suing the City of Lago Vista for violating her 4^th Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

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 initially overruled the case, and then was affirmed en banc.

Facts:

      Atwater 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.

Procedural Result:

      En banc judgment affirmed for State.

Holding:

      The Fourth Amendment allows a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine, so long as there is probable cause that the violation has been committed.

Reasoning:

• 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.
• 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.”
• Court disagrees 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. 
  • Even ancient statutes allowed arrest without a warrant (nightwalker statutes).
  • The year after the 4^th was penned, the Congress passed a law allowing for marshals to arrest without a warrant.
  • There is no indication either that such a claimed rule has ever become “woven…into the fabric” of American law.
• ?'s claim for creating a modern arrest rule that requires more than probable cause, namely a reasonably foreseeable problem with the D fleeing or not showing up for trial, or being dangerous to society, would create too much litigation, and is not a good idea.
• This arrest was not made in an “extraordinary manner, usually harmful to privacy or physical interests, so it should be allowed.

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.
• Proposed rule:  Make the officers point to facts that reasonably show why the ? was arrested when it is a non-violent/fine misdemeanor.