SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE CRIME-SEARCH LAW

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 Partlow'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 the 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 suggested the drugs were actually his."

It doesn't matter that 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."

Pringle's case is part of a court docket that is robust with criminal
procedure issues this term. Last month, they heard a case that promises to
better define so-called "knock and announce" rules governing when
authorities may forcibly enter a dwelling with a warrant. In December, the
justices will hear three cases on Miranda rules, which govern when police
must inform suspects of their rights. They will hear two other cases about
Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure this
month.

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 need.

Those points are backed by U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, whose
brief in the Pringle case points out a series of cases that give 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 situations.

"Probable-cause arrests 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."

Gribben said it's possible in cases like these for innocent people to be
arrested, but that the judicial system would free them once it was clear
they weren't responsible.

"We have confidence in the system that someone not involved with the crime
would be released," Gribben said. "The danger, if you prevent police from
acting this way, is that you wouldn't be able to determine who's guilty in
the first place. Police need to be able to act on reasonable observations
and detain people who may be involved in a crime."

In Pringle's case, though, Glasser points out that the evidence of criminal
activity beyond possession didn't exist.

"In most cases, there's something else like the odor of drugs or something
in plain view in the car, or even the officer noticing a scrambling motion
in the vehicle as he approaches it," Glasser said. She said in Maryland,
police have also been known to say they noticed a suspect's nervousness or
even a "pulsating carotid artery" to justify their suspicions. "But you
don't even have that here. You just have three guys sitting in a car."

Pringle was convicted and a Maryland appeals court upheld the conviction,
saying the police officer had enough evidence to arrest all three men. But
the state's highest court narrowly overturned the lower court ruling, saying
the officer had no reason to link Pringle to the drugs and therefore no
basis for further investigation.

The Supreme Court will rule by next spring.

Gribben said no matter what they decide, the ruling will have a big impact.

"This is something that any citizen may encounter at some point," he said.
"You can drive down any street, any day, and see someone pulled over by the
police."