532 U.S. 318, 323-324, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001)
In March 1997, petitioner Gail Atwater was driving her pickup truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her three-year-old son and five-year-old daughter in the front seat. None of them was wearing a seatbelt.1 Respondent Bart Turek, a Lago Vista police officer, observed the seatbelt violations and pulled Atwater over. Turek approached the truck, yelled at Atwater, and told her she was going to jail.2 He called for backup and asked to see her driver's license and insurance documentation, which she explained she did not have because her purse had been stolen the day before.3 Atwater asked to take her frightened and crying children to a friend's house nearby, but Turek refused and said she was not going anywhere.4
Atwater's friend soon arrived to take charge of the children. Turek then handcuffed Atwater, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the local police station.5 Booking officers had her remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses and empty her pockets. Officers took Atwater's mug shot and placed her alone in a jail cell for about one hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond.6
Atwater was 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. She ultimately pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor seatbelt offenses and paid a $50 fine on each charge; the other charges were dismissed.7
Atwater and her husband filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Turek, the City of Lago Vista, and Chief of Police Frank Miller, alleging that the warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.8 The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, but sitting en banc the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.10
Whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine?11
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.12 The traditional and almost unanimous historical understanding guides the analysis. It is reasonable for an officer to make an arrest without a warrant whenever he has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a criminal offense in his presence.13
No. The Fourth Amendment's text is not historically understood to impose a limitation on warrantless arrests for fine-only offenses.14 The common-law rule at the time of the Fourth Amendment's adoption permitted peace officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed in their presence.15 This historical practice has continued to the present day without significant change.16 Atwater's proposed rule would require officers in the field to make difficult, on-the-spot determinations about whether an offense is jailable, which would unduly burden law enforcement.17
The arrest here was supported by probable cause and was not otherwise unreasonable.18
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid the warrantless arrest for the seatbelt violation.19
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Ginsburg And Breyer, Jj., Joined As To Part I
Justice Stevens dissented. The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect citizens from arbitrary intrusions by government officials. A warrantless arrest for a minor traffic offense that carries no jail time is an unreasonable seizure.20
The common-law rule permitting warrantless arrests for misdemeanors was not uniform. Many jurisdictions limited such arrests to breaches of the peace.21 The seatbelt violation here was not a breach of the peace. It posed no immediate danger to persons or property.22
The majority's rule will allow police to arrest citizens for minor infractions at their whim. This is inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a free society.23 The arrest of Ms. Atwater was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.24
Whether an arrest for a fine-only seatbelt offense was unreasonable because it was not necessary to vindicate the state's interest in traffic enforcement?25
The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the least intrusive means to effect an arrest.26 An arrest is not unreasonable merely because it was not necessary to vindicate the state's interest in traffic enforcement. This holds when the arrest is not conducted in an extraordinary manner unusually harmful to the arrestee's privacy or physical interests.
No. Atwater's argument that her arrest was unreasonable because it was not necessary to vindicate the state's interest in traffic enforcement is unavailing.27 The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the least intrusive means to effect an arrest. Moreover, the arrest here was not conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to Atwater's privacy or physical interests.28 Atwater was handcuffed and taken to the station.29
There is no evidence that the officers used excessive force or that the arrest was unusually harmful to her privacy or physical interests.30 Because the arrest was supported by probable cause and was not otherwise unreasonable, it does not violate the Fourth Amendment.31
The arrest was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.32
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj.
Justice O'Connor dissented. The Fourth Amendment's touchstone is reasonableness. It is unreasonable to arrest a person for a minor offense that carries no jail time when there is no need to do so for the protection of the public or to ensure the person's appearance in court.33
The State has conceded that the only reason for the arrest was to vindicate the seatbelt law. A citation would have served that purpose.34 The humiliation and indignity suffered by Ms. Atwater were unnecessary. The Constitution does not tolerate this result.35
The record makes it abundantly clear that Ms. Atwater's arrest was constitutionally unreasonable.36