Case: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003).
Court: United State Supreme Court
Dates: Argued November 3, 2003—Decided December 15, 2003
Parties: Maryland / Appellants Pringle / Appellee
Procedural History: Pringle, along with three other men, were arrested for possession of drugs and large sums of money but Pringle took full guilt. Pringle first filed a motion with the trial court to suppress his confession with claims that his arrest was illegal because the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him. The trial court denied his motion and he was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine and sentenced to 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari and then reversed the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s decision
Facts: Joseph Pringle was a front-seat passenger in a car that was stopped and searched by police. After police found $763 in cash in the glove compartment and baggies of cocaine hidden in the armrest in the back seat, Pringle was arrested. Pringle …show more content…
Was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments violated?
Holding: The Trial Court held that the officer did have probable cause to search the vehicle and arrest the three men. The Supreme Court held that the officer did have probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Courts holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle also proves that the officer did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court thus reversed the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s judgment and the case has been remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s
Court: United State Supreme Court
Dates: Argued November 3, 2003—Decided December 15, 2003
Parties: Maryland / Appellants Pringle / Appellee
Procedural History: Pringle, along with three other men, were arrested for possession of drugs and large sums of money but Pringle took full guilt. Pringle first filed a motion with the trial court to suppress his confession with claims that his arrest was illegal because the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him. The trial court denied his motion and he was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine and sentenced to 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari and then reversed the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s decision
Facts: Joseph Pringle was a front-seat passenger in a car that was stopped and searched by police. After police found $763 in cash in the glove compartment and baggies of cocaine hidden in the armrest in the back seat, Pringle was arrested. Pringle …show more content…
Was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments violated?
Holding: The Trial Court held that the officer did have probable cause to search the vehicle and arrest the three men. The Supreme Court held that the officer did have probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Courts holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle also proves that the officer did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court thus reversed the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s judgment and the case has been remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s