Posted on 12/15/2003 2:17:27 PM PST by ask
Court Allows Arrests of All in Drug Stops
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court issued a traffic warning Monday: Beware of whom you ride with. If drugs are found in a vehicle, all occupants can be arrested, the justices said in a unanimous decision.
It was a victory for Maryland and 20 other states that argued police frequently find drugs in traffic stops but no one in the vehicle claims them. The court gave officers the go-ahead to arrest everyone.
In a small space like a car, an officer could reasonably infer "a common enterprise" among a driver and passengers, the justices ruled.
The case stemmed from an incident in 1999, when police in the Baltimore suburbs pulled over a speeding car. A search revealed a roll of cash in the glove compartment and cocaine in an armrest in the back seat.
The driver and the two passengers denied having anything to do with the contraband, so all three men were arrested.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the court, said police had probable cause to suspect that the drugs belonged to any of the three, or all of them.
Lisa Kemler, a criminal defense attorney from Alexandria, Va., said the court seems to be saying: "know who your company is."
"How many times have you gotten a ride with a friend? Are you going to peer around in their glove compartment?" asked Kemler, who fears the ruling will lead to a police dragnet. "You could find probable cause to arrest everybody."
Michael Rushford, president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-law enforcement group, said police can't be expected to sort out ownership of drugs or guns in the middle of a traffic stop.
"You certainly wouldn't let three people with Uzis in their car leave because no one would admit the uzis were theirs," he said.
Maryland's highest court had thrown out the conviction of a passenger in the car, Joseph Jermaine Pringle, on grounds that his arrest violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches or seizures. The Supreme Court reversed that decision.
"Pringle's attempt to characterize this case as a guilt-by-associaton case is unavailing," Rehnquist wrote in the brief decision.
Pringle told police later that the drugs were his and that he had planned to swap them for sex or money at a party. His 10-year prison sentence will be reinstated.
The American Civil Liberties Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a brief supporting Pringle. Their lawyer said the ruling will sweep innocent passengers into criminal cases.
"There's nothing in this opinion to prevent a police officer from arresting a graduate student who is offered a ride home late at night from a party that she has attended with some fellow students," said Tracey Maclin, a Boston University law professor.
The court's rationale could be used in other police search cases, involving homes, Maclin said.
The ruling dealt with the discovery of drugs and cash, but it could apply to other contraband as well.
Supporting Maryland in the case were the Bush administration, along with Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico.
The case is Maryland v. Pringle, 02-809.
---
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Or just DON'T SPEED. LOL
-Eric
Drug Warriors don't like "assault weapons" and use the same "living constitution" philosiphy in shaping their opinions.
Aw, how cute, you think you still have rights.
See Terry vs. Ohio 1968.
During a detention, anything you can immediately reach is searchable without a warrant. Read the 4th amendment carefully, you are only protected against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The SCOTUS has ruled Terry searches to be reasonable warrantless searches.
All that is required for a detention is RAS which is a much, much lower standard than Probable Cause.
I would much rather have somebody shooting at me with an Uzi than say a Sig Sauer. Sights suck, and the delay from the open bolt make accuracy pretty crappy.
My apologies.
How did you like the outcome of Survivor?
Mixed feelings. Once again, stupid gameplay dictated the endgame. Also, I was turned off by the "sour grapes syndrome" displayed by the jury in grilling Lil. The same thing happens every year on Big Brother.
As far as Sandra, I'm happy to see her win. She seems like a decent person, and she employed the "fly below the radar" doctrine which I am a big proponent of.
I thought the part where Probst described calling Jon's family to offer condolences, only to end up speaking with the "dead grandmother" was hilarious.
I really looking forward to All Stars. Go Rudy!
Or an Uzi? *shudder*
Yeah my pet peeve every year on Survivor and Big Brother, as personifed by Burton this year, is the theme "you lied to me". And what utter supreme hypocracy on his part. He had voted for her to be evicted. Grow up folks!
As far as Sandra, I'm happy to see her win. She seems like a decent person, and she employed the "fly below the radar" doctrine which I am a big proponent of.
Agreed. She was a sneaky little girl. Man if she had been voted off it was gonna be hard on the remaining folks, as she planned to hide all of their vital necessities. LOL
I thought the part where Probst described calling Jon's family to offer condolences, only to end up speaking with the "dead grandmother" was hilarious.
I actually found myself liking Jon more than I thought I would. You have to hand it to him, he was probably the smartest player in the game.
I really looking forward to All Stars. Go Rudy!
That should be fun to watch.
Three bad guys confront another. One pulls a gun, one shot fired, the guy dies. All three are charged with murder. You don't agree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.