Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003).
Parties: Maryland, Petitioner Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Respondent
Facts: A car was stopped y a Police officer for speeding. The Officer had probable cause to search the vehicle and when he did he found money and cocaine. The three occupants of the car were arrested for denying ownership. After signing a written confession Pringle was sentenced by the State Court for possession and intention of distribution of cocaine. The case was revised by the Appellate Court holding that the cocaine hiding between the back seat arm-rest and the seat was not enough to provide probable cause.
Procedural History: Respondent Joseph Jermaine Pringle requested a motion to suppress his confession stating that it was a confession made to an illegal arrest. The Trial Court denied the motion and stated that the Officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Pringle was sentenced to 10 years
…show more content…
Therefore it is not illegal to make a warrantless arrest of an individual for violating the law in a public place, in presence of an officer, as long as there is probable cause. When the three men were questioned by the officer they did not offer any information in regards to ownership of the cocaine or the money. These facts gave the Police reason to believe that all three occupants had knowledge of the cocaine and money, giving him probable cause to arrest all three of them. Later, that same morning after the arrest of the three men, Pringle waived his Miranda rights and decided to give an oral and written confession, in the confession he took ownership of the drugs, and stated that “they were on their way to a party, with the intention to distribute”. For the before mentioned facts, Pringle was found guilty of possession of a controlled