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/

[NYC GOP Chick]

Just when you think the USSC can't get any dopier than they already are...

[Lexington Green]

Bend over. We got your freedom right here...

[yonif]

Isn't this how its always been?

[danneskjold]

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.

Who should have been arrested in this case?

[AdamSelene235]

"You certainly wouldn't let three people with Uzis in their car leave because no one would admit the uzis were theirs," he said.

And, what, pray tell, is wrong with owning an Uzi?

Telling.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Member since 12-10-03, May I ask? LeRoy is that you?

[Hank Rearden]

Supporting Maryland in the case were the Bush administration

Of course. More of that "limited government" crap and lies that Bush Jr.'s been spouting to buy votes.

[RS]

"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."

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

Methinks there is more here then the writer is telling us.

[george wythe]

"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.

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.

[scan59]

Another good reason not to pick up hitchhikers.

[BlackbirdSST]

"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."

THUG RULE! Blackbird.

[zeugma]

I'm so glad we have republicans holding the house, senate, and white house, so the creeping police state will finally get rolled back.

Oh, wait....

[OPS4]

I always thought that drugs and driving dont mix. So arrest whoever if the drugs are there. Maybe then druggies will not be tempting non-druggies, then young minds may flourish.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[NYC GOP Chick]

Why were the police doing such a thorough search for a speeding ticket?

[MissAmericanPie]

I thought the same as you. I thought everyone in the car was charged.

[Husker24]

So if you get in a cab and the driver has some Cocaine in the glove compartment and he gets pulled over, you go to jail? This has gotten to an idiotic level. This is why i registered as a independant and not a Republican. I dont support this kind of crap or some of the drug forfiture laws.

[ask]

Isn't this how its always been?

no

[danneskjold]

Why were the police doing such a thorough search for a speeding ticket?

Doesn't say...also doesn't answer my question...

Let's say they smelled pot, searched the car and found a stash in glove box. Who gets arrested if no one claims ownership?

[freeeee]

Why were the police doing such a thorough search for a speeding ticket?

It definitely wasn't a fishing expedition. They were looking for more evidence of speeding, of course. /s