The Supreme Court Allows Arrests of All in Drug Stops (PoliceState)

AP ^ | Dec 15,2003 | GINA HOLLAND

[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/

[Torie]

Arrest is not the same thing as conviction.

[ask]

took it off of Breaking News fast

[AdamSelene235]

... and just WHY was a car searched over a speeding ticket ?

Anytime you are detained, your person and the area immediately around you can be searched under the Terry doctrine. In a car this includes the glove box, under the seat, but not the trunk or any locked compartments. No warrant is required as this is not considered an "unreasonable" search.

[Michael Barnes]

Who should have been arrested in this case?

Owner of the vehicle I would say. If it was on someone's person, that's a different issue.

[NYC GOP Chick]

I honestly don't know. Perhaps the driver/owner, if anyone? But what bothers me the most is that passengers in a car -- people who generally have no say or stake in what's in the glove compartment -- are being hauled off to jail for what's hidden in someone else's car.

[danneskjold]

Owner of the vehicle I would say. If it was on someone's person, that's a different issue.

Why just the owner?

[danneskjold]

I honestly don't know. Perhaps the driver/owner, if anyone? But what bothers me the most is that passengers in a car -- people who generally have no say or stake in what's in the glove compartment -- are being hauled off to jail for what's hidden in someone else's car.

Fair enough...I was just curious what everyone thought when I saw all of the "Police State" comments...

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...When a conservative scholar or celebrity is arrested for riding in a vehicle where one of the passengers has illegally-obtained Oxycontin, then we will revisit the case...

Have you ever noticed that celebrities and people of note are occaisionally arrested for gun possesion but you never hear of them going to jail. Wouldn't want someone with millions of dollars appealing an unconstitutional case for anything.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

In a small space like a car, an officer could reasonably infer "a common enterprise" among a driver and passengers, the justices ruled.

Hooo boy does that cover a lot of ground.

Just imagine what kind of "common enterprise" any pissed off LEO could dream up during a traffic stop.

[Michael Barnes]

My glovebox locks...what then?

[Itzlzha]

Who should have been arrested in this case?

Whom do YOU suggest? After all, what's Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Ammendment when there is cash to confiscate, vehicles to impound and sell for profit...

I thought that you needed to PROVE who the guilty party was...not just spread the guilt around!

Personally...I think the driver should be the one responsible, just like the Captain of a vessel. If the driver is NOT the owner of the vehicle, the suspect can refer the Police to the person responsible.

HOW is a passenger in the back seat able to be found guilty for what is in the GLOVE COMPARTMENT?!

Can this ruling be applied to a car with POLITICIANS/JUDGES and OTHER POLICE when the get caught?...

Didn't think so.

[eastforker]

Usually the driver/owner as long as it is physically not on a person but in the vehicle. As far as the search who knows,maybe the driver gave permission which brings up another point. If there are 2 or more passengers in the vehicle shouldn't it take the permission of all to search without a warrant? Sounds to me like this is FUBAR and will be challenged at a later date and subsequently be struck down.

[AdamSelene235]

My glovebox locks...what then?

That would require a warrant. Terry only applies to things you can quickly grab. Zipped backpacks are technically ok but I prefer a locking briefcase, just to be sure.

[Michael Barnes]

It's the owners property, it's the owners responsibility to ensure what goes on with that vehicle. The only reason I think there is truth to that is my dad is a cop. One of my friends a long time back had a bag on him. I promptly threw him out of the vehicle at the next stop sign when I found out. Asked my dad (CA Cop) what would happen if I was pulled over and the friend dumped it on the floor boards. He said I would be the one gettig hauled away.

I'm not addressing the searching of the vehicle though..That sounds a bit odd for a speeding ticket.

[danneskjold]

I thought that you needed to PROVE who the guilty party was...not just spread the guilt around!

Arrests do not equal guilt, and usually arrests occur before proving guilt or innocence...

[NYC GOP Chick]

Anytime you are detained, your person and the area immediately around you can be searched under the Terry doctrine. In a car this includes the glove box, under the seat, but not the trunk or any locked compartments. No warrant is required as this is not considered an "unreasonable" search.

Really? When I was pulled over for speeding by an overzealous cop in the Bronx, he never searched my car, made me get out, etc. And this bastard was just licking his chops, looking for a reason to arrest me. Essentially, he thought I was a "rich bitch" who shouldn't have been driving in such a "rough" neighborhood/borough.

[Looking4Truth]

America is gone. Welcome to the New World Order.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

It's been like this in New York State for years. And not just with drugs, but stolen property, etc.

The theory is that if you are in a car, a car is small enough you ought to know what your co-passengers are up to. And a defendant always has the right to tell a jury that the contraband (drugs, stolen property, etc.) wasn't his, that he didn't realize it was in the car, etc.

All this does is codify the concept that there is probable cause to arrest everyone in the car and let a jury sort it out.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Don't arrests usually require some sort of probable cause, or something like that? IMO, just taking everyone present and hauling them off to jail sounds like a major lawsuit just begging to happen.

[danneskjold]

Thanks for the replies...just curious to see what everyone's thoughts were...