October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1408
Is a custodial arrest for a minor traffic violation reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?
The dispute centers on whether police may arrest a driver for a minor traffic offense without a warrant.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. De Carli argued that reasonableness is the core of the Fourth Amendment. He criticized the lower court for creating a broad new rule.
Mr. Taylor argued that warrantless arrests for traffic offenders are reasonable. He stated that probable cause makes this intrusion lawful.
Mr. George stated that the Fourth Amendment issue includes the seizure. He emphasized the scope and nature of the seizure.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Gail Atwater sued the City of Lago Vista. She claims her arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. The city argues the arrest was lawful.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
Atwater wants the Court to strike down the lower court rule. She seeks a ruling that her arrest was unreasonable.
The City of Lago Vista wants the Court to uphold the lower court decision. It seeks confirmation that its officers acted lawfully.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
What each side says
Atwater argues the lower court created a broad new rule. She contends this rule allows custodial arrests for any offense seen by an officer.
The City argues that warrantless arrests for traffic offenders are reasonable. It cites probable cause as the basis for this intrusion.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
What the justices asked
The Chief Justice asked Mr. George to address the Court. He noted the Fourth Amendment issue involves the seizure and its scope.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of police power. It determines when officers may detain citizens for minor offenses. The outcome shapes daily interactions between police and drivers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.