Maryland V. Pringle 540 U.S. 366 (2003)

Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366 (2003)

Parties: The State of Maryland, Appellant / Appellee,

Joseph Jermaine Pringle / Plaintiff / Appellants

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) respondent Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith in the backseat, was stopped for speeding by a police officer. When the officer requested Partlow’s license and registration the defendant opened the glove compartment exposing a large amount of money, which turned out to be $763. The officer returned to his patrol car to run the license and found nothing so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Once the second officer arrived he requested to search the vehicle, which Partlow agreed too. The search exposed $763 in the glove compartment and five glassine Baggies of cocaine behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men about who the owner of the cash and drugs was but none of them would talk so the officers said they would arrest all of them if no one spoke up. All three men were arrested and taken to jail. Later that morning Pringle waived his Miranda rights and made a full verbal and written confession admitting the cash and drugs were his and the other two men had no knowledge of the drugs and money which granted them release.

Procedural History: Pringle, along with three other men, were arrested for possession of drugs and large sums of money but Pringle took full guilt. Pringle first filed a motion with the trial court to suppress his confession with claims that his arrest was illegal because the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him. The trial court denied his motion and he was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine and sentenced to 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari and then reversed the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s decision.

Issues:

Issue 1: Did the officer have probable cause to search, seize and arrest Pringle?

Issue 2: Was the 4th and 14th amendments violated?

Holdings:

Issue 1: The Trial Court held that the officer did have probable cause to search the vehicle and arrest the three men. The Supreme Court held that the officer did have probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance.

Issue

...