Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (April 24, 2001)

* court: United States Supreme Court * public agency: City of Lago Vista, Texas

* plaintiffs' job classes: police officer * trial court's decision: against plaintiffs

* Fifth Circuit's decision: against plaintiffs

* United States Supreme Court decision: against plaintiffs

* issue area: Fourth Amendment, warrantless arrest for non-violent minor crime, Section 1983

Atwater Facts

* Gail Atwater in March 1997 was driving her pick-up. Her three-year-old and five-year-old were in the front seat. They were not wearing seat belts. 

* Officer Turek observed this and pulled Atwater over and called for backup. Atwater was not carrying her driver’s license or insurance certificate. 

* A friend came and got the children. 

* Officer Turek handcuffed Atwater and took her to the station where her personal effects were removed. She was placed in a cell for an hour and then taken before a magistrate. Atwater eventually was fined $50.00. 

* Atwater and her husband filed a Section 1983 action in state court which the city removed to federal court. 

* The federal district court ruled against the Atwaters, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 

* The United States Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote affirmed the lower court rulings.

Atwater Analysis

* The sole issue in the case is the Fourth Amendment and its prohibition against unreasonable seizures. In determining what the framers of the Fourth Amendment would consider “unreasonable”, the court looked to (1) English law before the American revolution and (2) American statutory law to conclude that peace officers have traditionally been able to make arrests for minor crimes committed within their presence, even if the crimes did not involve a breach of the peace. Presumably the framers of the Fourth Amendment were aware of this practice. 

* English common law prior to the American revolution permitted a private person (not even a peace officer) to arrest a “common cheater” who was “cozen[ing] with false dice”. 

* Parliament beginning in the 1200s enacted “nightwalker” statutes, under which a town watchman was required “if any stranger do pass by them, he shall be arrested until morning”. 

* In the 1500's, Parliament passed a law allowing peace officers to arrest persons who were bowling, playing tennis, dice, or cards. 

* In the 1700's, Parliament allowed peace officers to arrest negligent carrier drivers, (Ms. Atwater’s forebears?). 

* Things were similar in pre-revolutionary America. Many New England states authorized arrests of “all Persons unnecessarily traveling on the Sabbath or Lord’s Day”. [It is my opinion that traveling home from an LDF meeting is “necessary”.] 

* At the time of the drafting of the Fourth Amendment, many states had constitutional provisions similar to the Fourth Amendment while at the same time having statues permitting arrests for non-violent minor crimes, suggesting that the states reviewed the statutes as consistent with the constitutional provisions. 

* Congress, one year after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment, gave federal marshalls the same powers as local sheriffs, presumably including the right to arrest for non-violent minor crimes. 

* Congress and state legislatures thereafter enacted statutes permitting arrests for non-violent crimes. Courts upheld these statutes against nineteenth century constitutional attack. Even the law forbidding unnecessary travel on Sunday survived constitutional attack in New Hampshire in 1817. 

* All 50 states currently permit warrantless arrests of non-violent minor crimes. 

* So Atwater cannot get away with arguing that the past is on her side. 

* The court also rejected her policy arguments, finding that a rule of warrantless arrests only for jailable offenses (and not for “fine-only” offenses) would be impossible to administer and would result in underenforcement of criminal laws. Thus, both as a matter of history and policy, warrantless arrests for non-violent minor crimes is reasonable. 

* “Often enough, the Fourth Amendment has to be applied on the spur (and in the heat) of the moment, and the object in implementing its command of reasonableness is to draw standards sufficiently clear and simple to be applied with a fair prospect of surviving judicial second-guessing months and years after an arrest or search is made.” 

* The four-justice dissent argued that what is required is a balancing of the government interest against an individual’s privacy and liberty. Guess who wins, as far as the dissent is concerned, in the case of a custodial arrest for a traffic stop?