DRUG CASE TESTS PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD FRONT-SEAT PASSENGER CHARGED AFTER
COCAINE FOUND IN BACK SEAT

WASHINGTON -- Police should be able to arrest the front-seat passenger in a
car in which cocaine was found hidden in the back seat, a lawyer for the
state of Maryland told the Supreme Court on Monday.

"Probable cause (to make an arrest) is a fluid concept depending on the
context," Gary Bair told the justices. Three men in a car containing crack
cocaine and a large amount of cash created a "reasonable inference" that
all were involved in drug sales, Bair said.

But a lawyer for Joseph Pringle, the front-seat passenger convicted of
cocaine possession, said that allowing police to arrest him without a
particular suspicion that the cocaine was his violated the Constitution's
requirement that arrests have "probable cause."

Pringle was "arrested with no evidence that he had committed a crime,"
lawyer Nancy Forster said.

About half of all police interactions with the public are traffic stops,
the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics says. But Monday's case, Maryland
vs. Pringle, appears to be the first time that the high court has been
asked to decide whether police can arrest all occupants of a car carrying
hidden drugs without showing that any of them knew the vehicle was carrying
contraband. If Maryland's argument prevails, police will have greater
latitude to arrest passengers in cars that come under scrutiny.

The case began in Baltimore County in 1999, when a Nissan Maxima carrying
three young men was stopped for speeding. The arresting officer saw a roll
of bills totaling $763 in the glove compartment, then searched the car with
the owner's permission. When five bags containing small amounts crack
cocaine were found behind the backseat armrest, all three men were arrested.

Pringle acknowledged owning the drugs and planning to sell them. He was
convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. But the Maryland Court of
Appeals, the state's highest court, reversed Pringle's conviction, holding
that it was unreasonable to arrest a front-seat passenger for cocaine
hidden in the rear seat.

Maryland appealed to the Supreme Court. On Monday, the justices' questions
suggested that they found merit to both sides' arguments.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wondered whether a mother whose child hid
cocaine in her car would be subject to arrest if Maryland's position
prevails. Justice Stephen Breyer told Pringle's attorney that he, like the
arresting officer, found it "not plausible" that "one guy would stuff the
drugs back there" without all three "probably (being) in on it."

A decision is likely before the end of June.

Also Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether U.S. law blocks a
patient from suing his HMO if it refuses to pay for recommended medical
treatment.

The court agreed to hear two cases on the matter, including an appeal from
a Texas man whose insurer required him to try a cheaper alternative to the
painkiller Vioxx, which his doctor had prescribed for arthritis.

Juan Davila claims the cheaper drug caused bleeding ulcers and almost
caused a heart attack. He sued in Texas courts, under a state patient
protection law.

Rulings in the HMO cases could have broad impact on patient care. As of
2001, 79.5 million Americans were HMO clients, according to the Statistical
Abstract of the United States.