from Marc Fisher's column in today's Wash. Post (it is just about what I remembered.)


"The matter wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Roberts's decision last fall shows him to be a witty writer with the confidence to show some heart. He seems pleased that after "the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," Metro changed its policy and no longer arrests young snackers. Roberts recognizes that Ansche wants the charges nullified because no one wants to have to say yes to that standard application question, "Ever been arrested?"

But Roberts quickly divorces himself from the human side of the case. He has no sympathy for the notion that Ansche was discriminated against because of her age. Roberts says government has every right to treat children differently, setting age requirements for voting, marriage, driving and drinking. Anyway, he notes, the fact that Metro changed its policy so quickly shows "that the interests of children are not lightly ignored by the political process." But Roberts rejects the idea that the court should weigh in on whether the police trampled on Ansche's freedom."

so...he did agree that the arrest was 'legal', if poorly thought out under bad policy. Sorry M. Ted, but even though I agree with you that we could have better choices, just saying "Roberts is the one who ruled in favor of arresting the 12 year old girl..." is misleading and incomplete. I actually though he showed some humor & comapssion in the case.