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 confessed at the police station and was later convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He challenged his conviction on the grounds that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and therefore his confession should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The trial and appeals courts in Maryland found that probable cause existed and upheld the conviction. The highest state court reversed, holding that the police officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Pringle, who was a front- seat passenger in the car and not its owner, knew about the existence of the drugs in the back seat armrest or had dominion or control over them at the time of his arrest Disposition: Issue(s): Does the existence of drugs in a vehicle support probable cause to arrest a passenger in the vehicle consistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? …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 decision. Reasoning: To support the court’s reasoning they discussed the court case Ybarra v. Illinois, Supra and United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948). In Ybarra, police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance. Not only did the police search the tavern and the bartender but all the patrons that were present as well. This violated the search warrant and violated all the patrons’ constitutional rights. Ybarra was among the patrons searched and on him an officer found a cigarette pack with six tinfoil packets containing heroin.
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 confessed at the police station and was later convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He challenged his conviction on the grounds that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and therefore his confession should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The trial and appeals courts in Maryland found that probable cause existed and upheld the conviction. The highest state court reversed, holding that the police officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Pringle, who was a front- seat passenger in the car and not its owner, knew about the existence of the drugs in the back seat armrest or had dominion or control over them at the time of his arrest Disposition: Issue(s): Does the existence of drugs in a vehicle support probable cause to arrest a passenger in the vehicle consistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? …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 decision. Reasoning: To support the court’s reasoning they discussed the court case Ybarra v. Illinois, Supra and United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948). In Ybarra, police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance. Not only did the police search the tavern and the bartender but all the patrons that were present as well. This violated the search warrant and violated all the patrons’ constitutional rights. Ybarra was among the patrons searched and on him an officer found a cigarette pack with six tinfoil packets containing heroin.