Opinion ID: 2996779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of the Initial Arrests

Text: The plaintiffs submit that their arrests for selling tickets in violation of the Milwaukee municipal ordinances were unconstitutional. Under Wisconsin Statute § 968.07(1)(d), a law enforcement officer may arrest when “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.” The plaintiffs do not dispute that the arresting officers had probable cause to believe they violated Milwaukee Municipal Ordinances 95-1 and 10556(2)(b). Arrest for a minor, non-jailable offense does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001). When officers have probable cause to believe that an individual has committed an offense in their presence, they may arrest the offender. See id. In Atwater, a mother was arrested for the misdemeanor offenses of failing to wear and failing to have her children wear seatbelts. See id. at 323. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit arrest for these offenses. See id. at 354. Atwater makes clear that even non-violent misdemeanor 8 No. 03-1329 offenses, such as unauthorized ticket sales, can support an arrest under the Fourth Amendment, as long as the officer had probable cause to believe the offense had been committed. The Court in Atwater noted, however, that individualized review may be appropriate “when a defendant makes a colorable argument that an arrest, with or without a warrant, was ‘conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to [his] privacy or even physical interests.’ ” Id. at 352-53 (quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 818 (1996)). The Court then determined that the petitioner’s arrest may have been “humiliating,” but it was no more harmful to her privacy or physical interests “than the normal custodial arrest.” Id. at 354. Similarly, in Whren, the Court noted that the traffic stop at issue did not “remotely qualify” as an extraordinary search or seizure. Whren, 517 U.S. at 818. When probable cause exists, only searches or seizures conducted in an extraordinary manner require a “balancing” analysis. Id. The plaintiffs argue that individualized review is appropriate in their case given the minor nature of the offense. Particularly, they contend that they faced “much worse” treatment than did the plaintiff in Atwater. The differences, they emphasize, relate primarily to the length of time spent handcuffed in a police vehicle, the thoroughness of the body searches, their inability to make phone calls and the fact that they had to share a holding cell with other prisoners rather than being placed in holding cells alone. We cannot say, however, that this treatment is “unusually harmful” to physical interests or privacy. Cf. Whren, 517 U.S. at 818 (listing examples of extraordinary searches and seizures as “seizure by means of deadly force . . . unannounced entry into a home . . . entry into a home without a warrant . . . or physical penetration of the body” (internal citations omitNo. 03-1329 9 ted)). Indeed, the plaintiffs’ situation was quite similar to that of the petitioner in Atwater: The arrests may have been “humiliating,” but they were no more harmful “than the normal custodial arrest.” Atwater, 532 U.S. at 354.