Can the police arrest someone for a mere traffic violation, handcuff the person, and take them to the police station? Unfortunately, yes, according to the United State’s Supreme Court. In 2001, the Supreme Court decided the case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001). In that case, a woman was stopped in Texas for a seat belt violation. In Texas, seat belt violations are misdemeanors, according to the Atwater decision. In Illinois, most traffic offenses, excluding things like DUI and driving on a suspended or revoked driver’s license, are petty offenses as opposed to misdemeanors. Ms. Atwater sued the City of Lago Vista, alleging that her fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures (arrest) had been violated because her only crime was not wearing a seat belt. The City of Lago Vista admitted that under Texas law this was a non-jailable offense. The Supreme Court ruled that even with non-jailable offenses, a police officer can arrest someone for minor traffic offense, even if the state law does not authorize incarceration (jail) for the offense violated.
Does this apply to Illinois since this was a misdemeanor in Texas and merely a petty offense in Illinois? While I am unaware of any cases extending the holding to petty offenses, my guess would be that the court would reach the same result in an Illinois case as in the Atwater case. Whether the offense is called a petty offense or a misdemeanor may not matter because the Court in the Atwater case was not troubled by the fact that this was a non-jailable offense.
This holding gives police officers more authority to take away someone’s liberty than a judge in a court and there would be no recourse for the person whose freedom has been taken away. While police officers are usually well trained, that is not always the case. In fact, in Illinois, there is a statute which allows municipalities to hire police officers without completing a required number of hours of training so long as the person completes that training within a certain number of days after being hired. Judges, on the other hand, have a bachelor’s degree, a juris doctorate (the degree lawyers most obtain), and usually have worked several years in the practice of the law before becoming a judge. With this holding, a police officer who has not even completed the minimum number of hours to be a police officer, seems to have greater authority to deprive someone of their liberty than a judge. While you may think that this is a tempest in a teapot because no police officer would do such a thing, I remind you the police for the City of Lago Vista arrested Ms. Atwater when she had done nothing more than not wear her seatbelt. If it happened there, it could happen here.
http://www.ellislawfirm.pro/
Before I can pass judgment on the seatbelt situation, I would be curious to know the extenuating circumstances. Was the woman being beligerent or uncooperative? Were there other criminals in the car with her? Did the woman act shifty and suspicious? I am not sure that the answers to these questions should really mnatter, but I hestitate to give my opinion on the matter until these questions are answered.
ReplyDeleteIf memory serves me, she was the only person in the car. I don't recall her having a record. I want to say that she was beligerent but I am unsure because it has been awhile since I read that case.
DeleteIn my opinion, it really should not matter. The idea that the police have a greater power to take away a person's freedom than a judge has seems backwards to my concept of an effective judicial system. I don't want police officers making that decision, particularly given the fact that they may be dealing with irrate and obnoxious people. That should not be the reason people are locked up.
it's on wiki. she had 2 kids in the pickup. she was cooperative. plz chk before giving completely wrong info.
DeleteAs I stated in my post, I was relying on my memory and I did not check the facts. Perhaps I was recalling the facts of a different case and got the two confused. But suppose, Bo Cain, that that Ms. Atwater had been uncooperative without violating any additional laws. Would that have made a difference? If you say yes, then you are suggesting that the police should not have the authority to arrest people who are polite and cooperative but could arrest people who are not. My argument is that the police should not have that authority regardless of whether the person was cooperative or not. Given that opinion, whether Ms. Atwater was alone or with someone, whether she was belligerent or cooperative misses the point. It is not about what she did. It is about what level of authority we give the police. This case gives police, in this type of situation, the power to deprive someone of their freedom, albeit for a relatively brief period of time. Even the Judge who would preside over the traffic ticket lacked that authority because it was a non-jailable offense. So, perhaps you can now better appreciate why I did not find it necessary to go to Wikipedia to check on facts which were inconsequential to either the holding or to my opinion. Since those facts were inconsequential, I will not bother, as you recommend, checking on facts have no bearing on either the decision or my opinion.
DeleteEveryone has their own opinion. I generally like the overall idea.
ReplyDeletesan mateo windshield replacement
Jeremy,
DeletePlease do not my blog to increase the ranking of your website. I link to my website, http://www.ellislawfirm.pro/, because there is an overlap from my website, which is about the legal services I offer, and this blog, which is about interesting legal issues.