Supreme Court rules on car drug searches

[pinwheel]

Arresting somebody is one thing. Convicting them in court is another.

Detaining somebody is one thing. Arresting somebody is another.

The problem I have with this ruling is this:

The syllabus of this opinion reads,

"As it is an entirely reasonable inference from the facts here that any or all of the car's occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly."

Is this right?

 

[Dr. J]

Posted by Mahan Atma
^^^ You guys don't realize what getting arrested means. The average time spent in jail -- just for being arrested,not convicted -- is about a MONTH or more.

Moreover, the pressure to take a plea is HUGE, even if you're innocent.

I don't know if you guys have ever been in jail, but it is a NASTY place to be. A huge number of people will gladly accept a conviction on their record in order to get out, even if they're innocent.

I'd be interested to see statistics that validate your claim of a month or more between arrest and conviction.

Secondly, I don't think it is up to the court to suddenly weigh the consequences of its definitions of probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if suddenly the courts were to say "Sorry, we can't execute this warrant because, even though there is sufficient evidence to merit probable cause, the resulting arrest *might* land the accused in jail for an as-yet determined amount of time."

The legal reasoning here makes pretty good sense--and a unanimous Supreme Court seems to think so too.

 

[BeenThere]

The court also stated ---

Here we think it was reasonable for the officer to infer a common enterprise among the three men. The quantity of drugs and cash in the car indicated the likelihood of drug dealing, an enterprise to which a dealer would be unlikely to admit an innocent person with the potential to furnish evidence against him.

When I used to deal, there were many times when the people I was riding with had no idea that I had something on me. Most of them had no idea I was dealing. (yes I have already served time for my past - no need to worry about me giving this information)

 

[Dr. J]

Interesting to note from reading the opinion--even though all 3 were arrested, the following morning, 2 were released....much less than the "month spent in jail..."

 

[pinwheel]

This still seems to be a very aggressive ruling.
Sure, if we are in a bank at the time of a bank robbery, we would expect, even be glad to help out with the investigation, answer questions...
But to be arrested on charges of being part of the bank robbery just because we were there?
Just sounds more like Stalinist Russia's way of doing things...
Not to mention that this law can easily be used for racist, classist purposes.

 

[pinwheel]

ACLU's take on the Maryland high court's ruling

 

[Mahan Atma]

I'd be interested to see statistics that validate your claim of a month or more between arrest and conviction.

You're right -- it's not a month. It's 77 DAYS.

From the Respondent's Brief, 2003 WL 21953877:

"According to statistics from the Baltimore County Detention Center where the three would have been incarcerated, the average number of days spend in pre-trial detention on a felony charge is 77 days. (Baltimore County Sentenced Inmate Elapsed Report, July 1, 2003, source, Baltimore County Detention Center.)"

Most of the people arrested in these situations are poor; they can't afford to post bail. And this is a very common fact pattern.

Secondly, I don't think it is up to the court to suddenly weigh the consequences of its definitions of probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And the definition of probable cause is?

Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if suddenly the courts were to say "Sorry, we can't execute this warrant because, even though there is sufficient evidence to merit probable cause, the resulting arrest *might* land the accused in jail for an as-yet determined amount of time."

You don't understand -- the central question in this was whether probable cause existed to arrest all of the passengers in the first place!

The legal reasoning here makes pretty good sense--and a unanimous Supreme Court seems to think so too.

There's no "reasoning". It's a judgment call, made all the easier for the justices by the fact that none of them will ever have to worry about spending 77 days in jail for a crime they didn't commit.

 

[Mahan Atma]

Interesting to note from reading the opinion--even though all 3 were arrested, the following morning, 2 were released....much less than the "month spent in jail..."

So you think it's OK to put two innocent people in jail for a night, in order to get the third to confess?

Yeah that's fair...

 

[Dr. J]

Posted by Mahan Atma
You're right -- it's not a month. It's 77 DAYS.

But in the case at hand the accused admitted his guilt and the other two were released the following morning. You don't think this same situation is likely to unfold in much the same way in other cases?

Posted by Mahan Atma
And the definition of probable cause is?

Well, taken from the this very opinion...

"Probable cause is a fluid concept--turning on the assesment of probabilties in particular factual contexts--not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. The probable cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances.

"The term probable cause, according to its usual acception means less than evidence which would justify condemnation...it imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion."

The Court has made it clear that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances, everything that has led up to the event in question. In this instance, there is no doubt a felony took place. Given the close proximity of the drugs to each person in the vehicle, combined with their reluctance to come clean, the officer arrested all of them, again, based upon the totality of the circumstances. Those who were not involved were released the following morning.

To read into this the ability of police to arrest mothers for pot in the backseat of their sons car would be ignorning the central aspect of this ruling....the totality of the circumstances.

Posted by Mahan Atma:
You don't understand -- the central question in this was whether probable cause existed to arrest all of the passengers in the first place!

So, conversely, you would argue that the officer had NO probable cause to arrest anyone?? C'mon.

 

[blakemore]

So you think it's OK to put two innocent people in jail for a night, in order to get the third to confess?

Yeah that's fair...

I'm the last person that wants my rights being infringed upon, and yes, I think it's reasonable for this to happen.

There is an illegal substance in the car. It belongs to someone in the car. That's enough suspicion for me that one of these three people is guilty of a crime.

Are they just supposed to let them all go because no one wants to take the blame? Clearly not.

Should they just arrest the driver and let the others go? Assuming that the drugs are the driver's or holding the driver responsible for something they may have nothing to do with is just as unjust as detaining people who may potentiallly be innocent.

 

[Dr. J]

Posted by Mahan Atma:
So you think it's OK to put two innocent people in jail for a night, in order to get the third to confess?

Yeah that's fair...

You're damn right that's fair. What are arguing is to strip police of their power.

Consider the case of three men driving in a car that fits the description of one seen leaving the scene of murder. Inside, the officer finds a murder weapon, but no one admits to it. You would argue that all 3 be let go? Or that the officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, arrests all 3, allowing for further questioning?

 

[Mahan Atma]

But in the case at hand the accused admitted his guilt and the other two were released the following morning. You don't think this same situation is likely to unfold in much the same way in other cases?

No, I don't. I'd be very surprised if this resulted in only one night of jail for the innocent passengers in most cases. And I guarantee you that it's going to result in convictions for a substantial number of them, because an awful lot of people will plea to time served rather than risk a longer stretch.

Well, taken from the this very opinion...

"Probable cause is a fluid concept--turning on the assesment of probabilties in particular factual contexts--not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. The probable cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances.

"The term probable cause, according to its usual acception means less than evidence which would justify condemnation...it imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion."

Great. Now you explain why you automatically assumed that the cops had probable cause to arrest all three, based on this definition. Because I sure as hell don't see any words to that effect -- it's a total judgment call, right?

The Court has made it clear that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances, everything that has led up to the event in question. In this instance, there is no doubt a felony took place.

There is certainly no doubt that "a felony took place". The question is, "who committed it?"

Given the close proximity of the drugs to each person in the vehicle, combined with their reluctance to come clean, the officer arrested all of them, again, based upon the totality of the circumstances. Those who were not involved were released the following morning.

Those who were not involved were also thrown in jail for a night -- and they are damned lucky it wasn't a lot longer.

To read into this the ability of police to arrest mothers for pot in the backseat of their sons car would be ignorning the central aspect of this ruling....the totality of the circumstances.

In other words, you leave it up to the discretion of the police and the prosecutors. I prefer the courts to take a somewhat more active roll in protecting the innocent.

So, conversely, you would argue that the officer had NO probable cause to arrest anyone?? C'mon.

Actually, in the past, in most states they would have arrested the one closest to the drugs (in this case, the guy in the back seat sitting next to them).

I would argue that yes, the officer had no probable cause, but if you're going to arrest someone, arrest the person sitting next to the drugs.

And Maryland's highest court agreed with me, so don't act like I'm nuts or something.

 

[Mahan Atma]

You're damn right that's fair.

I bet you'll change your mind one day if you're unlucky enough to end up in jail.

What are arguing is to strip police of their power.

What you are arguing for is to give the police a lot more power than they had in the first place.

Consider the case of three men driving in a car that fits the description of one seen leaving the scene of murder. Inside, the officer finds a murder weapon, but no one admits to it. You would argue that all 3 be let go? Or that the officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, arrests all 3, allowing for further questioning?

There's a big difference between a murder and a drug crime, isn't there?

Oh wait I forgot -- We're in the middle of a DRUG WAR.

So... how many of you all got high recently? Feeling a mite hypocritical are you?

 

[Dr. J]

Posted by Mahan Atma:
I would argue that yes, the officer had no probable cause, but if you're going to arrest someone, arrest the person sitting next to the drugs.

This logic doesn't make sense. First you say the officer had no probable cause to arrest anyone in the car, then say that if he had to, to arrest the one closest to the drugs. This still suffers from the same problem you are trying to avoid. Say my mom gets pulled over driving my car with a bag of coke underneath the driver's seat. Neither one of us admit to its possession so you would aruge that the officer should take my mom to jail...is that correct?

Posted by Mahan Atma:
There's a big difference between a murder and a drug crime, isn't there?

I see.....so now you are defending different legal standards for different crimes? How exactly does that work? Probable cause must apply differently to those involved in drug crimes than all others?

You still didn't answer my question.

Posted by Dr. J
Consider the case of three men driving in a car that fits the description of one seen leaving the scene of murder. Inside, the officer finds a murder weapon, but no one admits to it. You would argue that all 3 be let go? Or that the officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, arrests all 3, allowing for further questioning?

Assuming, of course, probable cause is the same standard for all crimes, and your stated position, you would either let all 3 go or simply arrest the one nearest the murder weapon. Suppose, though, that all 3 men were in the front seat and the weapon was just laying in the middle of the backseat.

Do you see the problem with your position? While I understand the need to protect people's rights, at some point, you cannot simply tie the hands of law enforcement.

And Maryland's highest court agreed with me, so don't act like I'm nuts or something.

A divided court, yes. A unanimous Supreme Court made this ruling. I don't think you're nuts, by the way, I just think your position on this issue is wrong.

 

[Mahan Atma]

This logic doesn't make sense. First you say the officer had no probable cause to arrest anyone in the car, then say that if he had to, to arrest the one closest to the drugs. This still suffers from the same problem you are trying to avoid. Say my mom gets pulled over driving my car with a bag of coke underneath the driver's seat. Neither one of us admit to its possession so you would aruge that the officer should take my mom to jail...is that correct?

My position is that the cops had no probable cause to arrest anyone.

I'm mostly pointing out what most states did before this decision, which wasn't simply to let everyone go, which seems to you to be the ultimate evil. Instead they used a common sense distinction, looking at the facts (e.g. proximity) to decide which of the persons was most likely to be guilty. I find this vastly preferable to arresting everyone.

I see.....so now you are defending different legal standards for different crimes? How exactly does that work?

It's called "totality of the circumstances", as you already pointed out. And believe you me, that's the way it plays out in the real world. The judge is vastly more deferential to the cops in a murder case, justifiably so.

You still didn't answer my question.

I would want to know more facts. A good criminal law case is always extremely fact dependent. Are the cops sure the actual murderer is in the car? Certainly they can detain them for questioning. But putting all three in jail for several months? No.

Assuming, of course, probable cause is the same standard for all crimes, and your stated position

Where did I state that position? I agreed with your definition - it depends on "totality of the circumstances", and it's largely a judgment call.

I have an exam tomorrow and Friday, I'm going to have to come back to this later.

 

[Biscuit]

All I want to know is when is Chief Justice Rehnquist due for retirement. I have a feeling the whole mentality of the US Supreme Court may well change once the baton is passed to someone a little less conservative. I suppose the job will go to the next most conservative person on the bench.

The Australian High Court is in the same quagmire. 1985-1996 was a great period of insightful progression, increased levels of fairness and equality throughout the community and a general modernisation of the common law. The last 5 years however has been depressing ever since our conservative government who took over around 1996, stacked the Court.

In Australia we have compulsory retirement at 70 years. Is there a similar situation in the States?

 

[Dr. J]

I'm sure Bush would love to see Rehnquist retire so he can elevate someone like Scalia. The Court, thanks to the many Republican appointments of the 1970s and 80s,coupled with the probable retirements and new appointments by Bush, will continue to be a conservative court for many years to come.

And, no, there is compulsory retirement for federal judges in the United States. We've got them for life.

 

[Dr. J]

Posted by Mahan Atma:
I'm mostly pointing out what most states did before this decision, which wasn't simply to let everyone go, which seems to you to be the ultimate evil. Instead they used a common sense distinction, looking at the facts (e.g. proximity) to decide which of the persons was most likely to be guilty. I find this vastly preferable to arresting everyone.

A common sense distinction. I still don't understand your position.

Why does it make more sense that there is probable cause to arrest an individual based on his proximity to the drugs alone in a car whereas in the case at hand, you find no probable cause?

Why does simply being nearest the drugs suddenly meet you standard of probable cause? In the Maryland case, the guy in the backseat was closest to the drugs but the cocaine actually belonged to the guy in the front seat. Under your scenario, an innocent guy still goes to jail, right?

Posted by Mahan Atma:
I would want to know more facts. A good criminal law case is always extremely fact dependent. Are the cops sure the actual murderer is in the car? Certainly they can detain them for questioning. But putting all three in jail for several months? No.

By saying this, you are agreering with Court's "judgement call." Officers have to be able to make decisions based on all the facts that they have in front of them. You support the totality of the circumstances approach, which is exactly what the officer did in this case. He knew a felony had happened but could not necessarily articulate who had committed it.

Again, under your theory, he should have just simply arrested the man closest to the drugs. You say he would have had probable cause to do that, right? But then an innocent man goes to jail. The officer suspected that all three might be involved so he arrested them all. And, the two innocent men went free the next morning.

I simply fail to see this as the pandora's box or sudden green light on tyrannical police practices that some liberal's talk it up to be.

 

[pinwheel]

Link to the Maryland High Court's ruling on this case, which was then overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[craig420]

Interesting to note from reading the opinion--even though all 3 were arrested, the following morning, 2 were released....much less than the "month spent in jail..."

The 2 were released ONLY because of the admission of the third. Had the third not admitted guilt, it is likely they would have been held for a significantly longer duration.

But in the case at hand the accused admitted his guilt and the other two were released the following morning. You don't think this same situation is likely to unfold in much the same way in other cases?

You cannot apply the law on the assumption that innocents will always be released due to a confession by a guilty party. You must protect the innocent from being snared by the guilty parties in the first place. Had the guilty party in this case not confessed, the innocent two could/would have faced long stays in jail. I think you and your logic are suffering from the same problem that the Supreme Court did in this ruling...you're blinded by the guilt of the defendent in this case.
And to everyone arguing that the cops must arrest all of the passengers in order to provide justice, keep in mind that the cop could still have detained the passengers for a while, questioned them, taken all of their identification information, and then released them to continue an investigation later. Just because a cop releases suspects does not mean all attempts at investigating the crime must cease.