SUPPORT SEEN FOR LATITUDE IN CAR ARRESTS

Justices To Weigh Suits Against HMOs

WASHINGTON -- In a case that could give law enforcement greater power to
arrest passengers in vehicles, Supreme Court justices Monday appeared
skeptical of arguments that police went too far when they arrested a man in
the front seat of a car after they found drugs behind a back-seat armrest.

A lawyer for Joseph Pringle argued that police violated his constitutional
rights when they arrested him after discovering the drugs stuffed behind
the armrest. She said police had no evidence that Pringle, who was riding
in the front passenger seat, knew about the drugs.

But several justices, including liberals David Souter and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, suggested that police acted reasonably when they arrested
Pringle, the driver of the car and another man riding in the back seat.

"It just doesn't strike me as plausible . . . that one would stuff drugs
into an armrest unless the other two knew about it," Justice Stephen Breyer
told Pringle's lawyer, Nancy Forster.

At issue is whether police had the probable cause required to arrest
Pringle after they discovered the drugs. Pringle, who later confessed that
the drugs were his and was sentenced to 10 years in jail, argued on appeal
that the arrest violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches
and seizures.

When arresting a suspect without a warrant, police must have probable cause
and a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a crime. Maryland's
highest court ruled last year that police did not have probable cause to
arrest Pringle and threw out his conviction.

Forster argued Monday that police only had grounds to arrest the driver
and, possibly, the back-seat passenger.

But lawyers for the Bush administration and the state of Maryland argued
that the arrests of Pringle and the car's other occupants were reasonable
after police discovered a large roll of cash in the glove compartment and
the drugs packaged in small plastic bags, as if for sale. They said the
officers had taken into account key circumstances--the time of the
incident, the money, the way the drugs were packaged--before making the
arrests.

Gary Bair, arguing for Maryland, said the situation led officers to believe
the men--all in their 20s--were drug dealers.

Under questioning from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Bair insisted that
police would have been justified in arresting all of the vehicle's
occupants even if the drugs had been hidden right next to the driver.

O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared troubled by the potential
sweep of the case. O'Connor asked whether police could arrest a mother
riding to the grocery store with a son she did not know was dealing drugs,
or whether a child riding in a car on the way to school could be arrested
if drugs were found inside.

Attorneys for the administration and Maryland replied that in those cases,
the police may not have probable cause to arrest the mother or the child.

Also Monday, the court said it would consider whether patients can sue
insurers for failing to pay for recommended medical care. The court will
examine the extent to which health maintenance organizations can be held
liable for treatment and coverage decisions.

The court also refused to intervene in Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice
Roy Moore's quest to permanently place a 2 1/2-ton monument of the 10
Commandments in the state courthouse. The justices let stand lower court
rulings that unanimously have held the monument was an unconstitutional
establishment of religion.

In another 1st Amendment case, the court refused to block a lawsuit filed
by Suzuki Motor Corp. against the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine
for unfavorable coverage of the Suzuki Samurai.

The magazine reported in 1996 that the sport-utility vehicle failed its
safety tests because it tended to roll over. The automaker alleged that
publisher Consumers Union falsified tests to bolster its magazine sales.

Consumers Union had urged the court to rule against Suzuki, arguing that
the fear of similar lawsuits would deter media companies from publishing
product reviews. It asked the justices to reverse a lower-court decision
that said Consumers Union must stand trial over the magazine's report.

The legal issue in question is how closely a judge must examine evidence in
the case when deciding whether to throw out a lawsuit before the trial begins.