In Atwater, the Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment does not prohibit law enforcement from conducting full custodial arrests for minor criminal offenses which, at a maximum, can only be punished by a fine. Do you agree with this opinion? Why or why not?
What was the rationale given by the Supreme Court in Chimel for permitting searches without a warrant when they are made incident to arrest? Also, given the rationale of the Court in Chimel for this warrant exception, how do you think arrests of occupants of cars should be treated?
One of the numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement is "consent." Read U.S. v Matlock at: UNITED STATES v. MATLOCK, 415 U.S. 164 (1974). How do you personally feel about the lawfulness of third party consent searches? Do you think it is appropriate, under the rule of joint authority, for another person to be permitted to give consent for you?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Illinois v. Rodriguez? Do you think it was correctly decided? Why or why not?
Disproportionate Intrusion: The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be "reasonable." A full custodial arrest involves a massive intrusion—handcuffing, transport to jail, booking, fingerprinting, mug shots, and often a strip search—for an offense (like a seatbelt violation) that the legislature deemed punishable only by a minor fine. This intrusion is grossly disproportionate to the government's interest, failing the traditional Fourth Amendment balancing test.
Increased Opportunity for Abuse/Pretext: The Atwater rule grants police officers unfettered discretion to arrest anyone for the most minor infraction. This discretion can be easily abused through pretextual arrests—using a minor traffic violation as an excuse to make a full custodial arrest in order to search the individual or their vehicle (due to the search incident to arrest exception) when the officer lacks probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a more serious crime. This disproportionately affects minority groups and risks turning minor interactions into dangerous or unnecessarily humiliating confrontations.
The dissent's position—that custodial arrest for a non-jailable offense should require a showing of necessity (e.g., flight risk, inability to identify, threat to safety)—offers a much more reasonable balance.
Sample Answer
This question addresses four core issues in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: the scope of arrest authority, the justification for searches incident to arrest, and the doctrines of third-party and apparent authority consent searches.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)
The Supreme Court held in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from making a full custodial arrest for a fine-only criminal offense committed in the officer's presence.
Do I Agree? Why or Why Not?
Personally, I disagree with the Atwater majority opinion. While the decision provided a "bright-line rule" for law enforcement, it creates a dangerous imbalance between individual liberty and police power, especially when the minor nature of the offense is considered.
My rationale for disagreement centers on two points: