The driver of the car, of course. You couldn't figure that out? Don't feel bad; neither could the Supreme Court, and they should know better. 
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/
The driver of the car, of course. You couldn't figure that out? Don't feel bad; neither could the Supreme Court, and they should know better.
In many ways it is...for example, my employer will not hire anyone who has been arrested. They do not care if the charges are later dropped, or no charges are filed.
My guess would be to arrest the driver/owner of the car. Common sense would state that if there was a large amount of money in the glove box, and a stash in the back he would know about it.... however, I would still like to know why they searched the car for speeding first.
Good luck, the officier will simply order you back into your car. Or have it towed and impounded, at which point it will be subjected to an inventory search, for your protection, comrade.
Anybody you know could smoke cannabis. If you're against cannabis, then you won't ever know they do. So, what are you going to do if you catch a ride with a friend and he get stopped with pot in his car and they arrest you?
Will you suck it up and just go along with the presumption of guilt, pay the $125 a week for the year you get probation and accept the bust on your record? This is exactly what happened to a guy I know personally that caught a ride through Texas.
Wasn't this a ruling by the US Supreme Court?
Solution? Don't speed.
Oh come on! Don't spoil their paranoia.
Ever been pulled over for having a light bulb burned out? Or not having your seat belt fastened? Or not stopping for a yellow light? Or maybe they want to check your inspection sticker at night.
Don't speed? That one's easy.
Perhaps his frustration at not being able to see the Paris Hilton video?
For the most part, yes. I've met a couple that consisted of little more than a badge and a mean streak.
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.