SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW POLICE TRAFFIC-ARREST POWER

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider the scope
of police power to arrest all occupants of a car during a traffic stop,
agreeing to look at a case in which everyone in a car denied knowledge of
drugs and a roll of cash found inside. The case from Maryland continues a
line of Supreme Court cases clarifying when officers have probable cause
and can apprehend someone without a warrant. In this case, the court will
consider whether it was an unconstitutional stretch for the officer to link
the front-seat passenger to drugs found in a back armrest, and then to
arrest all three people in the car.

Twenty states had urged the court to hear the case, involving a 1999
early-morning traffic stop in Baltimore County that yielded $763 in the
glove compartment and five baggies of cocaine in an armrest in the backseat.

"Countless times each day, officers make traffic stops and uncover
contraband in multipassenger situations. Police need the clarity of
authority to know who may be arrested in such cases," Maryland Attorney
General Joseph Curran argued in a court filing.

Joseph Jermaine Pringle, the front seat passenger, was convicted of drug
charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

He later told police the drugs were his.

An appeals court threw out Pringle's conviction on grounds that his arrest
was unconstitutional and the confession was tainted.

The Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches or
seizures. That means police almost always need a warrant to search
someone's house without permission, but the Supreme Court has interpreted
the protection more narrowly when it comes to automobiles and public
transportation.

Lower courts have differed on the correct standard for determining probable
cause to arrest a car's occupants.

"The uncertainty generated by conflicting court decisions does not make the
officers' already-difficult job any easier," Ohio Attorney General Jim
Petro wrote on behalf of the 20 states siding with Maryland.

The case is Maryland v. Pringle, 02-809.