Mapp V. Pringles Case Study

687 Words3 Pages
FACTS: On August 7, 1999 a routine traffic stop was conducted with three occupants. The Respondent, Pringle, was the front-seat passenger in a car that was stopped for speeding. Upon approach of the vehicle the arresting officer found $763 in the glove compartment while the owner,Donte Partlow was retrieving his credentials from glove compartment. The arresting officer conducted a vehicle search which discovered cocaine in the back-seat armrest. The officer arrested all three occupants of the car and Pringle was convicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine after he gave an oral and signed a written confession. Pringle was sentenced to 10 years without the possibility for parole. Pringle appealed the ruling arguing that probable cause to arrest him did not exist. ISSUE: Is whether…show more content…
Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), the people are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .U.S. Const., Amdt. 4. Maryland law authorizes police officers to execute warrant less arrests, inter alia, for felonies committed in an officerís presence or where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed or is being committed in the officerís presence. Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, ß594B (1996) (repealed 2001). A warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the officerís presence, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 424 (1976); see Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 354 (2001) stating that if an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the

More about Mapp V. Pringles Case Study

Open Document