Time to draw the line

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 28 May 2001 10:03:08 GMT

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED DEC. 6, 2000
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Time to draw the line

Gail Atwater, of Lago Vista, Tex., says she'd run into local policeman Bart Turek before.

The officer had previously stopped her for suspicion of driving without having her 4-year-old son belted into her pickup truck. In that first case, however, Atwater says Turek did not cite her, since it turned out her son was, indeed, wearing his seat belt.

She wasn't as lucky the second time. A toy had fallen out of their truck, and Atwater says she'd instructed both her son and daughter -- age 6 -- to undo their belts so they could crane their heads out the window, searching for the missing item as their mother drove the truck at 15 mph down an otherwise abandoned dirt road.

Sure enough, the ever vigilant Officer Turek chose that moment to show up again. When she was unable to produce her driver's license and registration for the officer -- telling him her purse had been stolen -- he became enraged, Atwater contends.

"You're going to jail!" she says the officer told her.

What 's undisputed is that Gail Atwater, 45, was indeed arrested, handcuffed, and locked in a jail cell for about an hour on that day back in 1997, until she could post $310 bail. And all this happened even though Texas law does not stipulate any jail time, even for those convicted of the offense of "not wearing a seat belt."

Atwater later pleaded "no contest" to three seat belt violations, paying $50 for each. She was also charged $110 in towing fees.

She asked the city to refund the $110, but received no satisfaction. So she and her husband -- an emergency room physician -- went to court.

Monday -- their house long since sold and having borrowed money from their parents for $110,000 in legal fees to date -- the Atwaters and their case reached the U.S. Supreme Court , which heard arguments on whether Atwater's arrest and jailing violate the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures.

Lawyers for the city argued "The state of Texas has a very significant interest in making sure that toddlers are wearing their seat belts so they won't be harmed or killed in accidents."

But Atwater's attorney, Robert DeCarli, responded "Every driver, if they get caught committing a traffic violation, they expect to get a ticket. Nobody expects to be handcuffed and taken to jail."

"You've got the perfect case," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told Atwater's attorney in court Monday. Then, turning to the city's attorney, she chided, "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."

Unfortunately, other justices seemed more tolerant of such oppression. "It is not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk," snarled Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Nonetheless, as Justice O'Connor seems to have sensed, in this case the state (having backed Officer Turek's call) is dead wrong.

Sure, most citizens would grant government some authority to restrict obviously dangerous behaviors on the roads. But this notion that officials can and should be empowered to stop and arrest and jail anyone, anywhere, because the authorities have some "compelling interest" in child welfare is very dangerous. In theory, don't we all collectively incur some of the "costs" if children aren't given properly balance diets? Should child welfare workers therefore be allowed to break in our doors at mealtime and conduct "spot vegetable inspections" ... without a warrant?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," Ben Franklin warned us in 1759.

If this is to remain a free country, responsible adults must retain a certain leeway to exercise their own discretion as to when it is or is not sensible to have their kids "buckled up." And even if it was appropriate to fine Ms. Atwater that $150, arresting and jailing her -- thus necessitating the towing of her truck -- for such a minor offense was, by definition, "unreasonable."

The high court has done some absurd hair-splitting of late, as in their decision in the case of the Indiana drug checkpoints last week, ruling police can't randomly stop drivers to look for drugs ... though it's still OK to stop us to see if we're drunk, or just to "check our papers" ... whereupon any drug offense they detect becomes fair game.

Instead of dreaming up such finer and finer distinctions -- if we are indeed to restore our promised government of "powers sharply limited" -- the court's job now is clearly to re-establish a "default setting" which restricts the government from interfering in any but the most egregious threats to the public safety.

And Gail Atwater's actions did not constitute such a danger.

Here's hoping the Supreme Court vindicates Ms. Atwater, and sends our police back to running down kidnappers, murderers, and thieves.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report (952-895-8757.) His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224.

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Truck seizure goes too far
A purely cosmetic measure
Like introducing 'just a little sewage' in the water supply
French court sets a bad -- and ridiculous -- precedent
'Ridicule and emotionalism ... serve no useful purpose'
Mining rules exceed congressional intent (surprise)
Justice Dept. determined to prove there is a Jabberwock
GOP congressman upset over election night 'early calls'
The king's men are doing fine
An Important Invitation from Vin Suprynowicz

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair