Here is an article regarding a recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision regarding Fouth Amendment protections. Gail Atwater was driving down the road when a police officer pulled her over. She and her two children weren’t wearing their seatbelts, an offense punishable only by a fine in Texas, where it happened. An officer pulled them over, handcuffed her, and took her to the police station. There, she was fingerprinted, photographed and booked until she posted bail. She later pled no contest and paid a $50 fine for the misdemeanor.
How can it be constitutional to be arrested for a crime, when the punishment for the crime, in the worst case, will be a small fine? The Fourth Amendment explicitly pertains to the unreasonable siezure (i.e., detaining) of people, as well as objects. What kind of case law exists that would prevent this obvious protection from being administered? What legitimate law enforcement purpose is served by jailing people for crimes for which they cannot be jailed?
What sort of drugs did they put in Souter’s coffee to get him to go along with their interpretation? I thought he was more levelheaded than this. Damn. “We have traditionally recognized that a responsible Fourth Amendment balance is not well served by standards requiring sensitive, case-by-case determinations of government need, lest every discretionary judgment in the field be converted into an occasion for constitutional review.” Excuse me, David, but there’s a Mr. Miranda here to see you.
Though, at this point, I’m not sure if even Carmen Miranda would make an impression on you.