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/
Man, you got it tougher than us in Massatuskey.
Here is the law:
If the signal exhibits a steady yellow indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection.
I've always had a little trouble with the gas pedal when I see a yellow light.
That's kind of what I was talking about when I mentioned a pissed off LEO. That law as written is open to some interpretation. And it is a guarantee that if you are stopped by a cop whose interpretation differs from yours, you will lose. Always. And once that happens...well, you've read the stories as much as I have.
That's not true. There needs to be probable cause before police can search a vehicle. Absent probable cause, permission must be given, which is what happened in the case at issue.
Heck, I even once deliberately ran a red light--at which I had stopped no less--and if a camera had caught be I would have fought it in court.
To be more specific, there were two straight-ahead lanes and one left-turning lane on a divided road. I was the #1 car in the left of the two straight-ahead lanes, and all the other lanes were occupied by stopped vehicles. All lanes of cross-traffic were occupied by stopped vehicles. I had slowed down to a stop at the yellow light when--just before the light turned red--I noticed that the car that had been some distance behind be wasn't any more and was travelling way too fast to stop. I floord the accellerator and almost certainly entered the intersection after the light had turned red (but before the opposing lights had turned green) and was passed in the intersection by the other vehicle.
I am quite certain that for me or one of the vehicles on either side of me to have run the red light was the only way to prevent the other driver from colliding with someone very hard. So which takes precedence--the red light, or the need to prevent accidents?
It's not unlike my favorite - 'driving too fast for conditions'. You can be ticketed even if you're going the speed limit, provided certain conditions exist (rain, snow, sleet). I suppose the presumption is if you get in an accident during any of these conditions, you bear the burden of proving you were not.
Technically, you still violated the law. But think about it, if someone had been there to ticket you, someone would have been there to also see what happened. It's likely the LEO would have passed you by to pinch the guy behind you.
Actually, that would not be unreasonable were it combined with the converse: if you are able to remain in safe and consistent control of your vehicle, that would suggest that you are not driving too fast for conditions.
I believe Illinois allows a "necessity" defense for any crime other than a Class I or Class X felony: if you can show that a certain action was necessary to prevent the severe bodily harm to you or any other person, and you can show that you did not through your own criminal or negligent action create the situation necessitating such action, then such action shall not be prosecuted.
If there were a cop there, I agree the cop would have most likely gone after the other vehicle (no mere moving violation; that guy should have been nailed for felony reckless driving since he was driving in such a way that there was no way he could have foreseen being able to avoid an accident). But if it were one of the cameras, I'm not quite sure what it would have shown. I don't know how fast the cameras can recycle, but if the other guy had been caught on film I certainly would have demanded a copy. I also would have demanded information about how their speed sensors worked (many cams measure a vehicle's speed in the intersection). If the other car picked up on one speed report but not the other, even if it wasn't photographed, it would have been interesting to ask a traffic court judge to explain how a Chevy Prizm can go from 5mph to 70mph in half a second.
More generally, btw, incidents like that are part of the reason I seriously distrust red-light cameras. A complete examination of the evidence would show that my behavior was necessary and thus legal, but a red-light cam might not have captured enough information for me to acquit myself.
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.