12-17-2003, 09:40 AM #1
New Supreme Court Decision On Drugs
Figured I'd throw this in for informational help for you guys carting stuff around in your car. I mentioned in a few posts I study law. This is new case law just decided other day from the almighty high court.
U.S. Supreme Court ruling unanimous decision 9-0
Maryland v. Pringle December 15th, 2003
Basically it sais in this ruling that all occupants of a vehicle when drugs are found go to jail. No longer does the driver just get charged or who ever decides to fess up. All go, all get charged, all go to jail. So dont count on blow joe in the back seat going to jail only just because you got nothing on you sitting in the front seat. You're going too. Normally if the arresting officer could not decide a valid arrest was always the driver.
12-17-2003, 09:49 AM #2
Is that a state ruling, or a national ruling?
12-17-2003, 09:50 AM #3
This is so wrong. Tom Arnold on the Tom Leykis show yesterday made such a valid point, we have only so much money to go around and we spend it on prosecuting vices rather than schooling our kids, feeding the poor, protecting our citizens from terrorists, etc.
And if you haven't been following it, they are going to take away our supplements if you don't contact your representatives!!
I wish one of those terrorist flights would have hit the capitol building and took out all the politicians.
12-17-2003, 09:52 AM #4
Its a U.S. Supreme Court ruling so its all across the land. All lower courts district, municipal, appelate, state..etc have to follow.
12-17-2003, 09:52 AM #5Originally Posted by Bigboy123
12-17-2003, 10:12 AM #6Originally Posted by Duct Tape
12-17-2003, 10:36 AM #7
i thought it was always like that......
12-17-2003, 12:13 PM #8
Well that's ****ed up....:
12-17-2003, 12:24 PM #9
Thats f'd up. I feel sorry for all you bro's over state side.
So what are you supposed to do, frisk your buddys everytime you all go out somewhere?
12-17-2003, 04:00 PM #10
actually this ruling is perfectly resonable. afterall it was a 9-0 ruling. lets look at the facts.
1) a car with 3 passengers was stopped speeding. when the driver went to the glove box for the registration, the officer noticed a large rolled up wad of bills.
2) after running the liscence, the officer asked to searcht the vehicle. the driver consented.
3) the officer found 5 baggies of cocaine in the car.
4) nobody claimed it and so the officer arrested them all.
5) Pringle waived right to counsel and confessed that the cocaine was his. He also said that he was going to a party where he was to sell it and that the others in the car knew nothing.
now, to be stopped there must be probably cause. Speeding is Cause. In most states police are allowed to ask to search a vehicle if they have suspicion. He asked and was granted permission. TO make an arrest there must be probable cause that a crime has occurred and is specific to the person arrested. possesion of cocaine is a crime. the court simply held that all people in a car are intimate enough to be logically included in a crime to which the car is attributed (absent knowledge otherwise).
now this doesnt mean they will be found guilty or even charged, just that they can be arrested. what would you have the cop do? FInd cocaine and then let them all go? THats the only other option.
Plain and simple Pringle was stupid by waiving counsel on a mandatory sentence charge and confessing. I do believe however that 5 small baggies shouldnt deserve 10 year no parole. but he should of gotten a lawyer and he would at least of gottne a plea, maybe freedom
12-17-2003, 04:34 PM #11
Yah, I always say no matter what you should invoke your 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. Also, mentioned was the 4th amendemnt but that was not an issue since Pringle gave the officer permission to search and granted the warrantless search.
Hmmm..dont think the plain view doctorine was applied here. Did the officer see the baggies in the glove box during the traffic stop?
Last edited by LuvMyRoids; 12-17-2003 at 04:50 PM.
12-17-2003, 07:27 PM #12
alot of people translate the cop saying "you mind if i search the vehicle" as him saying hes gonna search it. many people will give consent when all they really had to say is no or make up an excuse like im in a hurry. if the cop really has reasonable suspicion then he wont ask you at all, he will tell u to get out and put your hands on the car, but if he doesnt have that great of a reason to search he will ask u if he can and you have the right to decline the search...
12-17-2003, 09:22 PM #13
Exactly. So if you have something illegal in the car and your freaking out, don' t shoot the guy or floor the car in hopes of getting away if he ASKS you to get out of the car boys.
12-18-2003, 05:05 AM #14
So following the same logic, does that mean that if someone on a packed city bus ditches a bad of weed or rock on the floor of the bus, the cops will arrest and charge everyone on the bus?
12-18-2003, 06:10 AM #15Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
IMO. Dont think so. This ruling applies to occupants of a "small" vehicle the case brief clearly points out. It states the occupants must have knowingly have an intimate relation among themselves to least know about the such as one having illegal substances. Atleast, accordingly by the opinion by Justice Rehnquist this is the interpretation.
Last edited by LuvMyRoids; 12-18-2003 at 06:31 AM.
12-18-2003, 06:17 AM #16
To answer your question. After re-reading the case brief carefully it does mention a case pertaining to your concern.
Ybarra v. Illinois, supra, and United States v. Di Re,
Pringle’s attempt to characterize this case as a guilt-by-association case is unavailing. His reliance on Ybarra v. Illinois, supra, and United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581 (1948), is misplaced. In Ybarra, police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance. Upon entering the tavern, the officers conducted patdown searches of the customers present in the tavern, including Ybarra. Inside a cigarette pack retrieved from Ybarra’s pocket, an officer found six tinfoil packets containing heroin. We stated: “[A] person’s mere propinquity to others independ-ently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that per-son. Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 62–63 (1968). Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to search or seize another or to search the premises where the person may happen to be.” 444 U. S., at 91. We held that the search warrant did not permit body searches of all of the tavern’s patrons and that the police could not pat down the patrons for weapons, absent indi-vidualized suspicion.
Red Ketchup, The above incident pertains to a tavern. To your question in main, a public held place to the such ,a bus, I believe as well, applies. Below is also the opinion of the Court so I think this case will not apply to any public transportation such as a bus. As you can see above by the opinion the court held the search and seizure (4th amendment) and arrest of Ybarra was not applicable.
This case is quite different from Ybarra. Pringle and his two companions were in a relatively small automobile, not a public tavern. In Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U. S. 295 (1999), we noted that “a car passenger—unlike the unwit-ting tavern patron in Ybarra—will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or the evidence of their wrongdoing.” Id., at 304–305. Here we think it was rea-sonable for the officer to infer a common enterprise among the three men.
Hope that answers the question.
Last edited by LuvMyRoids; 12-18-2003 at 06:45 AM.
12-18-2003, 08:03 AM #17
nice reply luvmyroids. unfortunately i wasnt around to answer. as per your question, it is my understanding that he viewed the money when the glove box was opened by car occupent which would make it plain view. now this goes to Khull's comment about suspicion. To do a non-permissive search of a vehicle he must have probable cause. THe cop can always ask however and do a permissive search (I don't believe that the SC has ruled on limits about how and when a policeman can ask...although I may be wrong). Most states have regulations that the policeman must have reasonable suspicion to ask. THe big wad of money evidently to the state could lead to resonable suspicion. However, the SC has held that saying no to a search cannot be interpreted as probably cause for a search (as I recall, it was held that it couldnt be interpreted as cause for suspicion, either). In another words you can't be "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't. Being from Louisiana, where the cops are notoriously corrupt, one really needs to know that you can say no to a search.
the general perception I glean from this is if drugs are found on a passenger in a car, only the passenger is arrested. If drugs are found in an area that is presumed under control of the driver (glove box, trunk, etc) then the driver is assumed to be the one. In cases where a link to an individual is not clear, then all who can be assumed to be intimate with the crime will be arrested (this is important in public places).
LMR might want to weigh in on this as he likely has a bit more knowledge than I. I just know these things from reading FindLaw for the past 5 years so I can debate my lawyer friends!
12-18-2003, 08:11 AM #18
I learned something today.
12-18-2003, 10:54 AM #19
Thanks LuvMyRoids! Good answer.
With cops and crooks stretching the laws just a little more all the time, it's sometimes a little disturbing to see where our society is headed.
12-18-2003, 12:27 PM #20Originally Posted by jeffylyte
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)