Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

What Happened

In March 1997, 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 — a misdemeanor in Texas punishable only by a fine of $25 to $50.

Officer Bart Turek pulled Atwater over. According to her complaint, Turek approached the truck yelling, “We’ve met before” and “You’re going to jail.” He called for backup, demanded her license and insurance — which she didn’t have because her purse had been stolen the day before. He told her he’d “heard that story two-hundred times.” When Atwater asked to take her “frightened, upset, and crying” children to a friend’s house nearby, Turek said, “You’re not going anywhere.”

A friend arrived to take the children. Turek handcuffed Atwater, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the police station. There, she was made to remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, empty her pockets, and pose for a mug shot. She was placed alone in a jail cell for about an hour before being taken before a magistrate and released on $310 bond.

Atwater pleaded no contest and paid a $50 fine. She sued under § 1983, arguing the arrest violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure.

What the Court Decided

In a 5-4 decision by Justice Souter, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless custodial arrest for a minor criminal offense, even one punishable only by a fine. The probable-cause standard applies to all arrests without additional balancing of interests in individual cases.

The Court conducted an exhaustive historical analysis of English common law and founding-era American practice, finding no clear rule that warrantless misdemeanor arrests were limited to “breaches of the peace.” Parliament had authorized warrantless arrests for all sorts of minor offenses — nightwalking, unlicensed peddling, dice games, profane cursing — and American colonies followed suit.

The Court then rejected Atwater’s request for a new constitutional rule forbidding custodial arrest when conviction could not carry jail time. While acknowledging that “Atwater’s claim to live free of pointless indignity and confinement clearly outweighs anything the City can raise against it,” the Court concluded that a case-by-case balancing test would create unworkable complications for officers and courts. Instead, the Court adopted a bright-line rule: probable cause is enough.

Justice O’Connor’s dissent argued the majority’s rule was “irreconcilable with the Fourth Amendment’s command that seizures be reasonable” and would authorize “pointless indignity” like Atwater’s arrest.

What It Means in Practice

Atwater is devastating for § 1983 plaintiffs challenging arrests. It means an officer who has probable cause to believe you committed any criminal offense — no matter how minor — can constitutionally handcuff you, take you to jail, book you, and lock you in a cell. There is no constitutional proportionality requirement between the severity of the offense and the intrusiveness of the arrest.

This creates enormous power for officers to make pretextual arrests. Combined with Whren v. United States (1996) — which held that officers’ subjective motivations are irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis — an officer can arrest anyone for virtually any minor infraction as a pretext for another purpose.

The one safety valve: the Court noted that if an arrest is conducted in “an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to [the person’s] privacy or physical interests,” it might still violate the Fourth Amendment. But Atwater’s arrest — despite being humiliating — did not meet that bar.

How You Can Use It

• “Extraordinary manner” exception: If your arrest involved unusual force, prolonged detention, public humiliation beyond standard booking, or physical harm, argue that Atwater left open the possibility of relief for arrests conducted in an “extraordinary manner.” 532 U.S. at 354.
• State law limitations: Many states impose stricter limits than the Constitution. Texas and other states have statutes requiring citation in lieu of arrest for certain minor offenses. Even if the arrest is constitutional under Atwater, it may violate state law — which can support related claims.
• Retaliatory arrest claims: If the arrest was motivated by retaliation for protected speech, Atwater doesn’t help the defense. A retaliatory-arrest claim under Gonzalez v. Trevino is a separate analysis.
• Distinguish pretextual arrests: While Atwater allows the arrest, combining it with evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive may support equal protection or First Amendment claims.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• Blanket authority: Defendants will cite Atwater for the proposition that any arrest supported by probable cause is constitutional, full stop. No balancing of interests, no proportionality analysis.
• Kills many § 1983 false arrest claims: If the officer had probable cause for any offense — even jaywalking — the arrest is constitutional under Atwater, regardless of whether the officer had a different real motive.
• Standard booking procedures: The “extraordinary manner” exception is very narrow. Standard handcuffing, transport, booking, and brief cell time — all of which Atwater endured — were held not extraordinary.

How to counter: Focus on what makes your arrest different from a routine booking. Excessive force during the arrest, unusually long detention, strip searches for minor offenses, or denial of medication can cross the “extraordinary manner” line. Also explore state-law claims — many jurisdictions limit arrest authority for minor offenses by statute.