Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Supreme Court Upholds Certain Powers of Search and Seizure

Aired April 24, 2001 - 10:33   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Moments ago, we got some word about a decision being handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's go not to our Charles Bierbauer, who's keeping watch there -- Charles.

CHARLES BIERBAUER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects us all against unreasonable search and seizure, but the court's ruling today gives police discretion in making arrests for violations as seemingly simple as not wearing a seat belt.

Here's what brought this case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BIERBAUER (voice-over): Gail Atwater brought her two children to the Supreme Court in December, but the kids had a lesson in law enforcement three years earlier when mom broke the Texas seat belt law searching for a lost toy.

GAIL ATWATER, PLAINTIFF: As I was going 15 miles per hour, I allowed my kids momentarily out of their seat belts to look down on the street for their toy.

BIERBAUER: Atwater says her kids were in no danger. The state of Texas disagrees.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a very significant interest on behalf of all the states to ensure that toddlers traveling in automobiles are properly seat belted so that they may avoid unnecessary injury or tragic death.

BIERBAUER: But did the policeman who arrested Atwater violate her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure?

ATWATER: It ended with him handcuffing me and putting me in squad car and taking me to jail.

BIERBAUER: The seat belt violation carries no more than a $50. You've got the perfect case, Justice O'Connor told Atwater's lawyer. Still, the justices hesitated. Justice Kennedy: "It's not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk."

ATWATER: The whole case is about whether a police officer can intrude that much into your life. The Fourth Amendment is written to protect from that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BIERBAUER: Well, she didn't have the perfect case, though Justice O'Connor may have suggested that. Justice O'Connor, one of four justices dissenting, wrote that: "The court recognizes the arrest of Gail Atwater was pointless indignity, and yet it holds her arrest was constitutionally permissible."

"Constitutionally permissible," as Justice David Souter, writing for the five-justice majority put it, "because there's no historical basis for such limitations even dating back prior to writing the Constitution." And the justices felt that they were not convinced that there was a sufficiently serious problem of police abusing their arrest powers to warrant writing new law in this case.

A second case decided today involves a woman in the state of Alabama, an immigrant from Mexico who sought to take her driver's license test in Spanish because she was uncomfortable in English. Alabama had an English-only law. Was this discrimination? The court has ruled that it was not in this case, even under Title VI of the Voting Rights Act, because the discrimination may have been an effect, but it was not the intent, and Justice Scalia, again writing for a five-to-four majority on the split court, said that Title VI prohibits discrimination only when it's intentional and allows people to sue, but there is no private right to sue if the discrimination turns out to be what is known as a disparate impact; that is to say it has the effect of discriminating without being intended.

That's the report here from the Supreme Court on two narrowly- decided cases today. Back to you.

HARRIS: All right, good deal. Thanks much, Charles Bierbauer reporting live from Washington.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com