Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hi, I need help with essay on Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003). Paper must be at least 500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!After asking Partlow, the driver, for his registration the police
Hi, I need help with essay on Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003). Paper must be at least 500 words. Please, no plagiarized work!
After asking Partlow, the driver, for his registration the police recognized a roll of money in the compartment and sought to perform a consensual search before allowing them to proceed. The police seized $763 and cocaine stuffed behind the armrest of the back seat. The three acted ignorant of the drugs and money by denying ownership or knowledge of the drugs. This prompted the officers to have all the three arrested, taken to the police station and given a Miranda warning (Carmen & Walker, 2014). However, Pringle relinquished his Miranda rights confessed to own the drugs and money without the knowledge of his friends. Consequently, the trial court sentenced him for possession of cocaine for circulation. However, Pringle claimed that his arrest was illegitimate but was denied motion and had to face ten years of custody without parole. Although, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland unanimously supported the conviction, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed it. The court revealed lack of sufficient evidence to arrest, since even Pringle did not show any sign of previous knowledge, control, or authority over the drugs and money.
Firstly, the officer’s arrests did not breach the Fourth Amendment by arresting Pringle on probable cause. However, there was not proof of Pringle’s culpability beyond rational doubt. Based on the case Brinegar v. United States (1949), warrantless searches should be founded on reasonableness. The arrest was not reasonable given that speeding was the particular reason for pulling the car and not drugs and money. Consequently, a determination of the events leading to the arrest by the court led to the reversal of the decision to convict Pringle for ten years.
Despite acknowledging that the money was innocuous, and not worth consideration as a determinant of probable cause, the court agreed on the existence of probable cause in facts such as driving at
