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: Sitting in the front passenger seat of a vehicle, Pringle and the other three occupants in a vehicle was pulled over by the police. The police suspected the passengers in the vehicle had drugs in their possession. After the stop the police searched the occupants and the vehicle. A large amount of money and illegal drugs was found. The police arrested all the occupants in the vehicle. Pringle, being the passenger in the front passenger seat took the blame for the contraband and plead guilty. At trial, Pringle asked to have his confession …show more content…
The police officer found a large amount of money and what appeared to be cocaine in several small bags. Pringle, informed the officer that the money and bags of the substance was his. Pringle, took ownership of the contents found in the vehicle. Pringle, was arrested and charged with the intent to distribute illegal drugs. At trial, Pringle petitioned the court to have his confession be overturn, because he believed that probable cause did not exist for the traffic stop conducted by the police. Pringle’s petition was denied because the Trail Court found that probable cause existed, so the conviction held in the Court. The State Court change the decision of the trail court, stating that the police did not have probable cause to believe the appellee was the sole owner of the found items in the …show more content…
The Supreme Courts held that the officer had probable cause to affect an arrest and proved that the officer did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Pringle. The Supreme Court, reversed the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s judgment and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. Reasoning: To support the court’s reasoning they referred to the case Ybarra v. Illinois. In the Ybarra case, the police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance prior to conducting a search. With the warrant, the police had the authority to search the tavern. The police, however, violated the parameters of the search warrant, which violated the customers’ constitutional rights. Ybarra was a customer searched by the police, which the officer found a cigarette pack with six tinfoil packets containing heroin on Ybarra’s person. Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. Stating that the officer did not violate Pringle’s Fourth rights and had legal probable cause to search and arrest