Maryland v. Pringle

CASE OF MARYLAND V PRINGLE Name Institution Affiliation Course Date of Submission A police officer stopped a car for over speeding and arrested its occupants on the basis of a probable cause that a crime has been committed or is being committed in the vehicle although not clear who committed it, provided that there is a reasonable inference from the circumstances that the person arrested could have committed the crime. Pringle was occupying the front seat when the arresting officer found rolled up money in the glove compartment and cocaine in the back seat armrest. Since there was no occupant admitted ownership of the money and drugs, the three occupants of the car were arrested and Pringle was convicted for possession and intent to distribute cocaine after he testified under the Miranda rights (del Carmen & Walker, 2011). Pringle’s motion to suppress his confession was denied by the court as an outcome of illegal arrest and was convicted for ten years without a probable parole. The issue before the court is whether the arrest of the occupant in that case Pringle, a front seat occupant in a car driven by its owner was valid if there was probable cause to believe there was a violation of Fourth Amendment when the basis for the arrest is cocaine found in the back seat of the car, from the perspective of an objectively reasonable police officer that the occupant as involved in the crime (del Carmen & Walker, 2011). The trial court held that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle since the arrest did not contravene the Fourth Amendment. The Maryland law authorizes police officers to execute warrantless arrest, inter alia, where the officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed or is being committed in the officer’s presence (del Carmen & Walker, 2011). In this case, it is uncontested that the arresting officer upon recovering cocaine had a probable cause to believe a felony has been committed. To determine...