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/
I doubt it.
Most cabs are driven from the inside.
Okay if that is the way they feel then we should hold them ALL acountable for the CFR ruling, not just the ones who upheld it.
The officer on the beat is always the last line of defense for the Constitution. They are in the same unique position jurors are in...they have the discretion and ability, no "nullify" the law by choosing not to enforce it.
A law that forces prosecution of everyone in the car, removes discretion. This is as horrible as mandatory minimum sentences. It takes away control from anyone other than "big brother."
This country is going down the toilet thanks to judicial oligarchy. Something has to be done. Same thing with mandatory minimums. They have to go. The police state and 1984 is here.
Ok, don't get me started on this one. I never EVER saw this happen or heard about it happening in Dallas. Your actions in the car or how you drove to call attention to yourself spoke volumes, but not skin color. Officers don't go looking around and say "Hey there goes a black man! Get him!" Heck in this country today, you are as likely to be stopped 1) in OK just because you got a TX plate, 2) in a small town 'cause you are a city clicker 3) in a small town 'cause you're riding a motorcycle (like me) 4) in the deep south 'cause you're not "local" etc ad infinitum.
The "because I'm black" thing don't wash anymore than any other reason some turkey might stop you.
Dallas used to be clean, until people with questionable backgrounds started getting hired because of their skin color. Then we started seeing lots of crap.
~"you're a racist!!" flame suit is zipped up~
The main point is this ruling stinks. Between this and mandatory minimums and the disgusting WOD, we are closer to a police state than ever before. But it's really the state doing the policing, not the police themselves.
Search cases oftern turn on very fine factual differences. It may very well be that you get a different result if the drugs are in the glove compartment, and doubly so if a locked glove compartment. The only thing the case decides is that an ultimate conviction, by a jury, can't be overturned becasue of the initial search, and that the coip can't be sued successfully.
How about a van full of people going to the airport - 15 people who don't know each other -- in close proximity -- arrest all 15? How about a busload, say 50?
Common sense is exactly what's missing in this: define 'close proximity' -- is it the size of a car, a van, a bus, a train car (let's grab all 250 of 'em)?
Going to rely on the common sense of the arresting cop, who's ticked off 'cause he's getting jacked around? Come on, use some common sense!
Well, for starters what if it was owned by someone else and they were legitimately borrowing it? Still legal, at most in most states. If the three people were borrowing the car from a fourth person who owned the Uzi and left it under the seat, the judgement of that fourth person would be questionable but at least in most states nobody would be doing anything criminal.
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.