He shouted at her in front of her small children, no doubt inflicting on them psychological trauma that will require some time to heal. Further, as Justice O'Connor noted in her dissent, he incongruously failed to ensure that Atwater was wearing a seatbelt while he drove her to the police station. Be assured, gentle readers, that if Officer Dunphy had been the one to cross paths with Ms. Atwater, affable fellow that he is, the matter would have been handled quite differently, and Atwater's name would not now and forever be enshrined in the lore of American jurisprudence. But I take exception to the ominous, police-state projections implicit in Mr. George's and Mr. Lynch's articles. In truth, the Atwater decision merely affirms the laws of arrest observed by American police officers since the founding.
Conservatives are rightly alarmed by the excesses evident in American law in recent years.
Those on the Left, in lawsuits such as those against tobacco companies and gun manufacturers, seek through litigation to achieve ends that they cannot reach through legislation. Messrs. George and Lynch seem to be applying these same principles, chiding the majority in Atwater for failing to impose limits on the police that neither the Framers nor subsequent legislators sought to enact. Texas law obligates drivers to wear seatbelts and to ensure that children riding as passengers are properly secured by seatbelts as well. Violations of these statutes are misdemeanors, punishable only by a fine. For a police officer to enforce these laws he must, as with any misdemeanor, witness the violation.