Gail Atwater 4th Amendment
Gail Atwater was pulled over for not putting a seatbelt on her child. Standard procedure would be to give Gail a minor misdemeanor but instead the officer arrested her. The court defended that Atwater did not prove that any constitutional rights had been broken. The 4th amendment was the right being broken in this case. In the 4th amendment “Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.”
According to the state laws, ATwater should have been issued a $50 fine max. This meant that there were no grounds for her to be detained. The issue was that Atwater felt it was a constitutional violation for an arrest to be taken
when she should have been given a fine. A vital piece of information is that Atwater didn't place a seatbelt on either her child or herself. While this doesn't call for an arrest, this is mistreatment of her children and parental neglect for their well-being. The main question before the court was “Is it constitutional to detain someone by full custodial arrest for violating a minor offense”? The Supreme Court ruled that the officer was within the jurisdiction allowed to him by his job and the 4th amendment. The vote was 5-4, and it was written by Souter. Souter said that police may arrest at any time as long as they have reasonable suspicion that even the smallest infraction has been committed. The court ruled this way because they felt the officer was within his bounds. This case is important because our civil rights were limited by it. This case gave police the authority to arrest whenever they suspect the law has been broken, regardless of severity. I would have voted against allowing this sort of police action. The punishment of the crime should not exceed the severity of it. I also feel the framers of the 4th amendment wrote this to restrict police from abusing their power. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZS.html http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/arrest-search-and-seizure/atwater-v-city-of-lago-vista/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
According to the state laws, ATwater should have been issued a $50 fine max. This meant that there were no grounds for her to be detained. The issue was that Atwater felt it was a constitutional violation for an arrest to be taken
when she should have been given a fine. A vital piece of information is that Atwater didn't place a seatbelt on either her child or herself. While this doesn't call for an arrest, this is mistreatment of her children and parental neglect for their well-being. The main question before the court was “Is it constitutional to detain someone by full custodial arrest for violating a minor offense”? The Supreme Court ruled that the officer was within the jurisdiction allowed to him by his job and the 4th amendment. The vote was 5-4, and it was written by Souter. Souter said that police may arrest at any time as long as they have reasonable suspicion that even the smallest infraction has been committed. The court ruled this way because they felt the officer was within his bounds. This case is important because our civil rights were limited by it. This case gave police the authority to arrest whenever they suspect the law has been broken, regardless of severity. I would have voted against allowing this sort of police action. The punishment of the crime should not exceed the severity of it. I also feel the framers of the 4th amendment wrote this to restrict police from abusing their power. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZS.html http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/arrest-search-and-seizure/atwater-v-city-of-lago-vista/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution