CASE CITATION: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)
PARTIES: State of Maryland, Petitioner / Appellant Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Defendant / Appellee
FACTS: On August 7, 1999, at 3:16 am, a Baltimore County Police officer conducted a legal traffic stop on a Nissan Maxima containing to Joseph Pringle for speeding. Three people were in the vehicle, with Pringle in the front passenger seat. The police asked the driver, Donte Partlow, for his driver’s license and the vehicle registration. Parlow reached to the glove compartment and opened it to retrieve the registration and the police observed a substantial amount of money in the glove compartment. The police then checked each of the Parlow, Pringle, and Otis Smith, who was in the back seat for warrants. When the officer did not observe any warrants, he
…show more content…
The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense. The courts determined that Pringle’s confession was admissible and there was adequate probable cause to arrest Pringle. Ultimately Chief Justice Rehnquist determined the confession should be admitted and the conviction of Pringle should