Maryland v. Pringle

Supreme Court of United States
540 U.S. 366 (2003)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When contraband is discovered inside an automobile in a location accessible to all occupants, and no occupant claims ownership, a police officer has probable cause to arrest all of the vehicle's occupants for possession under the theory that they were engaged in a common criminal enterprise.

Facts:

At 3:16 a.m., a police officer stopped a Nissan Maxima for speeding.
The car was occupied by Donte Partlow (the driver and owner), Joseph Pringle (the front-seat passenger), and Otis Smith (the back-seat passenger).
When Partlow opened the glove compartment, the officer observed a large roll of cash, later determined to be $763.
Partlow consented to a search of the vehicle.
The search revealed five glassine baggies of cocaine hidden behind the back-seat armrest, which was accessible to all three men.
When questioned about the drugs and money, all three men denied ownership.
The officer arrested all three occupants.
Later at the police station, Pringle confessed that the cocaine belonged to him.

Procedural Posture:

Pringle filed a motion in the Maryland trial court to suppress his confession, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal arrest lacking probable cause; the court denied the motion.
A jury convicted Pringle of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine.
Pringle, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Pringle, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, which reversed the conviction, holding that the mere presence of cocaine in the car was insufficient to establish probable cause for Pringle's arrest.
The State of Maryland, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a police officer have probable cause to arrest all occupants of a vehicle where illegal drugs and a large amount of cash are found in areas accessible to all occupants, and no single person claims ownership?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes. When a police officer finds contraband in a vehicle in a place accessible to all occupants, the officer has probable cause to arrest all of them. The court reasoned that it is an entirely reasonable inference that any or all of the three occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Unlike the patrons of a public tavern in Ybarra v. Illinois, passengers in a small automobile are more likely to be engaged in a common enterprise, especially when the quantity of drugs and cash indicates drug dealing. Because none of the men singled out the guilty party, the officer could reasonably conclude there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession, either solely or jointly with the others.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the 'common enterprise' doctrine as it applies to vehicle searches and arrests. It provides law enforcement with clear authority to arrest all occupants of a car when contraband is found in a common area and ownership is not claimed, distinguishing this situation from mere presence at a crime scene. The ruling strengthens the ability of police to make arrests in ambiguous situations involving multiple suspects in a confined space, reducing the risk that the guilty party might escape by simply remaining silent. It sets a precedent that being a passenger in a car with contraband carries a greater risk of arrest than being present in a larger, more public setting where illegal activity is occurring.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Maryland v. Pringle (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"