Judge Roberts and the French Fry Case

One of the opinions written by Judge Roberts during his brief tenure as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is colloquially known as the "french fry case."  In this case, the mother of a 12-year old girl, Ansche Hedgepeth, brought an action under 42 U.S. C. 1983, alleging that her daughter's Constitutional rights were violated when she was arrested in a DC Metro (subway) station for eating a single french fry.  Hegdepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F. 3d 1148 (D. C. Cir. 2004)

The opinion starts off well enough with Judge Roberts writing, "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation.  A twelve-year old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed.  Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear seat of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later--all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station."  

A little background is in order.  Ms. Hedgepeth was arrested at a Metro station that serves about 3,000 young people per day.  Students from Deal Junior High School, Wilson High School, Sidwell Friends, and Georgetown Day.  Ms. Hedgepeth is a minority.  However, statistics showed a mix of both blacks and whites were arrested during a week long sting operation conducted by Metro transit police shortly after school started and Metro riders began complaining.  24 adults received citations; 14 minors were arrested.

Metro changed its policy soon after the "french fry incident."  As a result, youthful offenders of the "no eating, no drinking" rules now are not arrested.  Instead, warning letters are sent home with the youngster with a follow-up letter to the parents.  Ms. Hedgepeth argued that mandatory arrest of juveniles violated equal protection and that her arrest for eating a single french fry was unreasonable.

While it is hard to argue with some parts of the opinion written by Judge Roberts (particularly those parts dealing with probable cause for the arrest), the opinion is cold and heartless.  He writes, "The district court had and we too may have thoughts on the wisdom of this policy choice [detention until the parent is notified]--it is far from clear that the gains in certainty of notification are worth the youthful trauma and tears--but it is not our place to second-guess such legislative judgments."

This opinion shows that Judge Roberts is not a judicial activist.  It also shows he has no soul.