Supreme Court Debates Traffic Violation Arrests

Hearing arguments in a case that could affect anyone who drives a car, Supreme Court justices debated whether people can be arrested for traffic violations punishable only by a fine.

A Texas woman who was arrested, handcuffed and jailed because she and her children weren’t wearing seat belts asked the justices Monday to rule that the police violated her constitutional protection against unreasonable arrests.

“You’ve got the perfect case,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the attorney for Gail Atwater, who was arrested by a Lago Vista, Texas, police officer in 1997 while driving her children home from soccer practice.

Later, O’Connor told the city’s lawyer: “Even knowing it was a mother with two small children in a small town . . . this is kind of an amazing case. But you think that’s fine.”

But several justices also questioned whether the Supreme Court should try to set a rule governing such situations.

“How bad is the problem out there?” asked Justice David H. Souter, who said he wondered if the justices should base a constitutional rule on a rare case.

“It is not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk,” added Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Texas law gives police the discretion to make full custodial arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding.

The officer who stopped Atwater handcuffed her hands behind her back and took her to the city police station, where she was placed in a cell for about an hour before she appeared in court and paid a $50 fine. Atwater later sued the city.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the arrest was reasonable.

The case is Atwater vs. Lago Vista, 99-1408.