SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE ON SEARCH LAW

Maryland Officer Arrest 3 To Find Cocaine Owner, Critics Cry
'Unconstitutional Dragnet'

WASHINGTON - Everyone in Dante Parlow's car played dumb when a police
officer found five small bags of cocaine under a rear-seat armrest. So
a suburban Baltimore police officer arrested all three to get the
guilty party to confess.

The tactic worked. Joseph Pringle, one of Parlow's passengers, finally
said the drugs were his. Prosecutors built their case around Pringle's
admission.

But on Monday, Pringle's lawyers will tell the U.S. Supreme Court that
he was a victim of an unconstitutional dragnet that ignored important
restraints on police powers.

"If the court allows this, it sets a scary precedent for anyone who is
a passenger in a car," said Sherrie Glasser, one of Pringle's lawyers.
"This arrest was based only on Mr. Pringle's presence in the car,
rather than something that suggest the drugs were actually his"

It doesn't matter if Pringle was guilty, Glasser said. The problem is
with the procedure the police used. "They substituted arrest for a
reasonable investigation, and if you can do that, the Fourth Amendment
means nothing."

The Pringle case stands out from the others, though, by highlighting
the importance of criminal procedure rules to people who don't even
think of themselves as potential criminal suspects. If the court
sanctions what police did in Pringle's case, anyone who rides as a
passenger in a car, on a bus or even visits someone else's home could
be held responsible for drugs, weapons or anything illegal found in
the vehicle or home.

"It would set a pretty scary precedent," argued Glasser. "Parents of
teenagers should be especially concerned about this because their
children often ride in cars with big groups of people. Should they all
be held responsible for what one person may be doing? Or what if you
go to a dinner party at a friend's house and the neighbors report a
noise disturbance to the police? If they find drugs in the home when
they arrive and no one claims responsibility, can they arrest everyone
at the party?"

Authorities say police need to be able to reach common-sense
conclusions when deciding when they have probable cause to arrest in
situations where there are many suspects. In briefs filed with the
court, Maryland officials argue that police must be able to consider
all the circumstances when they encounter groups of possible suspects
who do not admit to their crimes and that the court should clarify the
rules in those instances to give police the discretion they needed.

Those points are backed up by U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olsen,
whose brief in the Pringle case points out a series of cases that gave
authorities permission to infer that passengers traveling in a car may
be collectively engaged in criminal enterprise. And 20 states support
Maryland's position in a brief filed by the state of Ohio.

Mark Gribben, a spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro, said
the high level of interest in this case is directly related to how
often police confront these situation.

"Probable-cause arrest are something police deal with on a daily
basis, and we really need the court to draw some clear lines about
what's acceptable," Gribben said. "it would be nice to have the
Supreme Court create a clear indication of just what exactly an
officer in a situation like this can use to determine probable cause."

The Supreme will rule by next spring.