Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366, Ct.795, 157 L. Ed.2d 769 (2003) Parties: Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Plaintiffs / Appellants State of Maryland, Defendant / Appellee Facts: Pringle, was a passenger in a car that was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the car, the arresting officer after asking for a consensual search and found money in the glove compartment and cocaine in the back-seat armrest. The officer arrested all three occupants of the car and Pringle was convicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine after he signed a written confession. Pringle appealed, arguing that probable cause to arrest him did not exist. Procedural History: The Court of Special Appeals for Baltimore County affirmed the conviction and …show more content…
The majority explained that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, allows for officers to arrests without a warrant where officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime in the presence of the officer. In this case, the officers undoubtedly concluded that a felony had been committed, and the question for the Court was if the officers had sufficient probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed a crime. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, that question was a fact dependent investigation as to whether circumstances allowed officers to conclude not only that a crime was committed but to have specific suspicion of Pringle. In the written opinion Justice Rehnquist stated that three men riding in a car where drugs are found, with all three suspects denying possession, affords officers probable cause to conclude that one or all have committed a crime. The Court rejected Pringle’s assertion that the probable cause in this case amounted to “guilt by association,” distinguishing this case from others in which searches of groups had been limited. As explained by Chief Justice Rehnquist the passenger compartment of the car was a small, confined area, adequate to assume knowledge if not a mutual understand of the presence of drugs within the vehicle. Accordingly, individual probable cause existed to support Pringle’s arrest by the police, and his confession was admissible, and his conviction should