Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Deadheads -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AugustWest who wrote (25919)	4/24/2001 11:05:32 PM
From: SIer formerly known as Joe B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 49844

You better not laugh You better not pout and here is why........... Tuesday April 24 10:48 PM ET dailynews.yahoo.com By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Tuesday that police may arrest individuals for minor traffic or other misdemeanor offenses punishable only by a fine, such as unbuckled seat belts or public littering. The high court, by a 5-4 vote, declared the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable arrests and searches, does not prevent the police from making such arrests without a warrant. ``The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seat-belt violation punishable only by a fine. We hold that it does not,'' Justice David Souter (news - web sites) said for the court majority. The dissent warned the ruling ``has potentially serious consequences for the everyday lives of Americans. A broad range of conduct falls with the category of fine-only misdemeanors,'' extending from traffic offenses to littering, for example. Souter, normally one of the court's most liberal members, was joined by four conservatives -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), a moderate conservative, said in dissent, ``The court neglects the Fourth Amendment's express command in the name of administrative ease'' and it ``cloaks the pointless indignity'' that the woman in the case suffered ``with the mantle of reasonableness.'' Seat-Belt Law Violated The case involved Gail Atwater, who in March 1997 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 seat belt. Bart Turek, a Lago Vista police officer, observed the violations and pulled Atwater over. She told him she did not have her license and insurance information, as required by Texas law, because her purse had been stolen the day before. Deciding to arrest Atwater, Turek handcuffed her and took her to the local jail, where she spent about one hour being processed and having bail set. She then was released on $310 bond. She was charged with driving without her seat belt fastened, failing to secure her children in seat belts, driving without a license and failing to provide proof of insurance. She pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor seat belt offenses and paid a $50 fine. The other charges were dropped. Atwater and her husband then sued the city, Turek and the police chief, alleging they had violated her constitutional rights and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Rejects Historical Argument Souter rejected Atwater's historical argument that the common law dating back to the founding of the country barred peace officers from making warrantless misdemeanor arrests, except in cases of ``breach of the peace'' involving violence. Souter said the British Parliament, before the founding of the United States, allowed arrests for all sorts of minor offenses without violence, including night walking, game playing, cursing and negligent carriage-driving. He said the laws in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia currently allow misdemeanor arrests by at least some peace officers without requiring any breach of the peace, as do a host of federal laws. Souter refused to create a new rule of constitutional law forbidding a custodial arrest when conviction does not involve any jail time and the government cannot show any compelling need for immediate detention. ``Atwater's arrest satisfied constitutional requirements,'' he said, even though it may have been inconvenient and embarrassing. O'Connor disagreed. ``There is no question that officer Turek's actions severely infringed Atwater's liberty and privacy.'' She warned that giving the police ``such unbounded discretion carries with it grave potential for abuse'' and said, ``After today, the arsenal available to any officer extends to a full arrest and the searches permissible'' under that arrest. Timothy Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute think-tank, said, ``The practical effect of the ruling is that police officers can exercise 'extremely poor judgement' and harass citizens for pointless reasons -- and those citizens are without legal redress.'' He added, ``The Framers of our Constitution would frankly be startled by the Supreme Court's cavalier treatment of the legal threshold by which citizens can be deprived of their liberty and thrown in jail.''