This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Time to draw
the line by Vin Suprynowicz 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 violated 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. "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 If you have subscribed to [email protected]
and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to [email protected],
from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no
quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to [email protected],
from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no
quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns
until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that
(should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety,
preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached
directly at [email protected]. The web sites
for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm,
and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex.
The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached
directly at [email protected]. |
||||||||