In the news this morning.....

Arrests OK for minor infractions
April 25, 2001
WASHINGTON - Police may arrest people without a warrant and take them into custody for minor offenses punishable only by a fine, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that could reshape everyday interactions between law enforcement and ordinary citizens.
The court held, 5-4, that a Texas police officer was not required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures, to get a warrant before he handcuffed a woman and took her to jail for letting her children ride in her pickup truck without seat belts. A warrant requirement in such cases would be too difficult to administer, the court said.

Legal analysts said the court's decision affects not only police power to conduct arrests but the power to carry out searches. That is because past court decisions have permitted police to search people and their cars without a warrant once they are under arrest. Tuesday's ruling means a motorist could be arrested for a minor offense and then subjected to a full vehicle search.

"If you want to search someone, all you have to do is book them for littering or jaywalking," said Susan Herman of the Brooklyn Law School, who wrote a friend of the court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, urging the court to rule for Atwater

Gail Atwater is being interviewed by Alex Jones right now.

[URL]www.infowars.com[/URL]

It appears that the cops also did some "payback" on her husband for her taking the case to the supreme court.

wonder if carjackings will now increase

People should not jump to conclusions when they know very little about the law... Police have never needed a warrant to arrest a person on the street.  They only need probable cause to arrest.  The only time LEOs need a warrant to arrest is when they are arresting in the home of the suspect.

As I understand it, its not quite so cut and dry.  What I think the SC is saying is that if your state makes it a criminal offense to not wear a seatbelt, or anything else for that matter, then police can technically make an arrest. The real problem is states comming up with stupid ass laws and departments getting authoritarian. So if your state makes it a criminal offense to jaywalk, and the department allows its officers to arrest for such an infraction, then they can get away with it.

True, and Generally, most officers will NOT arrest for minor offenses.  In South Dakota, we Cite and release for Petty Offenses and Class 2 Misdemeanors UNLESS they refuse to sign the Promise to Appear on the citation.  From reading the story, I still think there is something the media left out.  Even with the woman not having her license, this was a little extreme, barring other circumstances(like a refusal to sign) I really don't think yiou will be seeing mass jailings for seatbelts and spedings.  There is too little jail space to go around in most places.

All it will take is a few cops using this loophole in the law to ignore your rights and word will get out.  When word gets out more cops will be shot during traffic stops as anyone with items deemed illegal by the govt. will likely shoot first rather than take their chances of being arrested and getting searched.

Also true.  I've been out of it for a while, but I never knew a single cop who'd arrest for something like this, even if they could.  The chief I worked for would shit-can an officer for that more than likely.  I have to think there's more to this story.  When it comes right down to it, its up to the states and the laws they pass.  Look at the gun laws in Cali compared to Montana.  Just goes to show how you need to get involved.

BS

Any arrest by the officer will be from what I understand at the officer's discretion,so if he does not like your looks or wrong color or he just has had a bad day.SeeYa!
Most officers are good cops but there will the few who will misuse this new ruling,those that say are new to the force and gung ho trying to make a name for themselves and then those that walk on water-the GOD syndrome.
As for as having officers killed because of this ruling Yea, its going to happen because I for one don't want to go to jail for some minor infraction. I'm not saying that's what I would do. but there will be some out there that will. My job has already shown that if we are arrested for whatever reason we are most likely gone,guilty or not!  

No matter what this ruling says, I STILL can't make a physical arrest on a petty offense unless they either refuse to sign the promise to appear, Or I otherwise have reason to believe they will not appear.  And that reason better be airtight(A combination of things, like, no ID+statement{never see me again}+associate's statement{never see him again, I don't even know his name} and so on.  This decision only said that it is legal under TEXAS law.  For the majority of us, it doesn't mean a thing, because our STATE laws do not allow it. Get the picture?

Someone who said he was on the job in the Austin area where this occured said she was not arrested to not wearing hear seat belt.

She was arrested for refusing to "promise to appear" by signing the citation.

I would have the option of arresting her for not signing, or "drop serving" her.

That is, I drop her copy inside her car thru the open window: now she's been served.

The only issue before the SC for clarification appears to have been could she be arrested for not promising to appear on a petty or civil offense, and the SC said yes.

Jay
Arizona

What people don't seem to comprehend is that what the woman did or didn't do doesn't matter, but what does matter is the supreme court ruling. They didn't say anything about being subject to arrest after 2, 3, or 4 warnings for the same offense, just that it is not a Consitutional violation for cops to haul you off to jail for minor traffic offenses.

If you don't think this will be abused then I have a M1 Abrahms to sell.