Although Gail Atwater conceded that Officer Turek had probable cause to stop her for failure to wear a seat belt, she challenged the reasonableness of her arrest for violation of the Texas seat belt law under the Fourth Amendment. Our own best guess is that Officer Turek was having a real bad day. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit could find no clearly established law. There was not a single case in which a court has been asked to consider a police officer's action of arresting, handcuffing, booking, and dragging a first-time seat belt violator to jail. Or, if there were such cases, the court conceded that the victims were either without resources to call the officer's hand or simply chose to avoid any further involvement with a justice system so lacking in common sense and reasonableness.
Citizens have the right to be free from unreasonable seizures.
Even where there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed, any seizure which is conducted in an extraordinary manner or which constitutes an extreme practice must meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The Texas seat belt law is an ordinance which normally exposes the offender to a fine. These kinds of laws are paternalistic in that they are designed to protect a person from his own conduct, conduct which does not pose a threat to the public at large. Contrast this type of paternalistic statute with most traffic laws, the violation of which can have an immediate impact on other citizens using the streets and roadways. Thus, to determine the reasonableness of Officer Turek's actions, it is necessary to understand the nature of the offense and whom the law is designed to protect.