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/

[jmc813]

You have to hand it to him, he was probably the smartest player in the game.

Without a doubt.

[ActionNewsBill]

bump

[SevenDaysInMay]

Rehnquist has been an aggressive activist of the American socialists' "living" Constitution ruling to nullify our RATIFIED Constitution's Bill of Rights, the only social contract from which these people derive any and all of their uebermensch powers, having terms for "good behavior" - NOT for life.

Rehnquist's Court mocks our Bill of Rights, the God-given Rights of We the People affirmed by our Ratified Constitution, furthering their agenda of "compelling State interests" desired by American socialist elites in and near office.

This destruction of our Bill of Rights is nothing but "bad behavior" - SEDITION, for which these outlaws should be impeached and removed from office, forfeiting all future bloateed wages, benefits and allowances. These old men and women are guilty and recidivistic as they again and again create "law" suiting their world view from their protected perch. Stare decisis is their only defense, except that they continue to create even more "compelling State interests" at the expense of our Law of OUR Land.

Despite American citizens' Bill of Rights, this out of control government is defining its own doom. Read our Declaration of Independnece and our Ratified Constitution's Preamble. For 70 years the blackrobes in concert with other politicians have worked to enhance the powers of government clearly prohibited by the only Constitution we have, our Ratified Constitution. "Interpretations" these are not; RULINGS these are. Blackrobes have no Devine Right or earthly lawful authority to "rewrite" our Law of OUR Land any than they do to rewrite the law of gravity.

During this unending islamist Terror War, the conspiring powerful in our government are defining our Republic's doom through their unlawful sedition. Enemies of our RATIFIED Constitution are those we swore oaths to defend against.

Will all the ex-military men and women in the metastasizing Arabesque layers of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government forsake their oaths to defend our Ratified Constitution to become neo-Pretorian Guards defending the "living" powers of this federal government ruling We the People without basis in law?

Our Bill of Rights is not negotiable despite the fact that the gaveling elites tell us that they can over-rule whatever they care to, creating their own "controlling legal authority" instead of our Ratified Constitution.

Sedition by assault gavel.

[Sandy]

I'm well aware of all that. I thought you guys were talking about the case at hand. Fact is, the police asked for permission to search the vehicle. Rule of thumb, cops don't ask for permission that they don't need.

[AdamSelene235]

Rule of thumb, cops don't ask for permission that they don't need.

If you consent, the scope of the search is even wider than a warantless Terry search.

[Sandy]

If you consent, the scope of the search is even wider than a warantless Terry search.

Exactly.

[Revel]

"Thats some nice trickle down big brother action. Search my friends before the police do, huh? 20 questions before we go anywhere? Thats great.

"Do you do drugs? huh!? do ya!?" "

Questions are not good enough. They may lie to you. You better perform a strip search. And don't ever except a ride with anyone.

Imagine you get a ride home with someone...It could even be from church. Later the person is pulled over and drugs are found in the car. Your life is over. The fact is that this ruling is written this way. Legally it can happen. In the old days freepers had a lick of sense that way. They looked at things with deep thought. Our system was set up on the premise of innocent until proven guilty. It was done for this very reason. Now people are willing to depend on the good intentions of athoritys. Some of those wise freepers are still here lurking. But FR has obvioulsy become infiltrated with anti-american; anti constitution; Mindless marxists. The enemy of this country now dwells within the hallowed halls of FR. Many of them are probably not even US citizens. These enemys of America stand ready to pounce on the message of any true patriot. Either to discourage there message or get there threads pulled for flaming. What a bunch of fools the rest of us have become. We will live to see the day that we regret such foolishness. And then it will be too late.

[BurtS188]

I work in NJ in Law enforcement. It's always been that way here. This is nothing new.

[Revel]

I agree with you. I don't understand why you are attacking me.

[NYCVirago]

Somebody ought to point this out to Mayor Bloomberg. As a contingency plan for a transit strike, and during the blackout, he exhorted New Yorkers to pick up random strangers in their car!

[DrMrIce]

If the cop has no probable cause, the car does not wreak like pot or anything else and he ask's you if he can search the car than isn't it your right to decline?