[Phillip Augustus]

I would certainly argue that the physical arrest of a citizen for a penalty for which jail time cannot be imposed violates due process.

One cannot go to jail, pursuant to sentence, for a seat-belt violation in nearly jurisdiction; what then can be the possible State interest in allowing a tyranical punk with a badge (and I am NOT referring to all or most cops, but absolutely the shoe fits this one) physically arrest under the circumstances?

It clearly violates one's Constitutional right against an illegal arrest, and arguably constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to handcuff, strip-search, and incarcerate for eight to ten hours (longer if a OR bond is not given) a person for driving without a seat-belt.

I am not bashing conservatives by pointing all of this out; I am bashing conservatives who behave like liberals. And, in this case, the Supreme Court acted like Hillary Clinton would have, a nasty nanny with an iron fist.

[lasereye]

I don't know if the due process clause has anything to do with the case. The due process clause is about getting your day in court before you can be deprived of liberty or property. I'm no constitutional expert, but it's not clear to me that what they did, outrageous as it was, was unconstitutional. How did the case get to the SCOTUS? Was it a lawsuit by the aggrieved party?